Sua Devi vs Shravanram and Others

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The matter comes up on an application (No. 191/2015) filed by the respondents No. 16 to 18 in the present case in this Court on 08.10.2015, after giving copy thereof to the opposite counsel, Dr. Sachin Acharya on 08.10.2015 itself. No reply thereto has been filed by the plaintiff appellant, Smt. Sua Devi, who has filed the present suit and the present first appeal through her Power of Attorney, Mr.Badri Narayan Jat s/o. Shri Biram Ram Jat.

Alongwith the said application, the respondents No. 16 to 18 have filed a public notice purportedly published in Newspapers by the appellant through her Advocate, Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary on 26.09.2015, which is quoted below for ready reference:-

Another copy of letter dated 29.09.2015 by the same Advocate addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Jodhpur is also annexed with the application, which is also quoted below for ready reference:-

Briefly, it may be stated here that the suit was filed by Smt. Sua Devi through her Power of Attorney, Shri Badri Narayan Jat after about twenty years of the sale of the land in question in favour of the respondents No. 16 to 18, who are land developers, claiming that she had 1/3rd share in the landholding, and therefore, the sale itself was invalid. The suit No. 332/2014-Smt. Suadevi Vs. Shravan Ram & Ors., however, came to be dismissed at the threshold on 20.10.2014 by the learned trial court, against which the present appeal was filed by the plaintiff-appellant Smt.Sua Devi through her Power of Attorney Shri Badri Narayan Jat. A blanket ad-interim stay order was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.11.2014, which came to be modified by a detailed order passed by this Court, after hearing both the sides on 21.09.2015, and modifying the ex-parte order and referring to the earlier detailed order passed by another coordinate Bench of this Court dated 07.09.2015, this Court passed the following interim order on 21.09.2015, the relevant and operative portion of which is quoted below for ready reference:-

"After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that any blanket order by the Court on such a claim of her share in the suit land raised by the plaintiff after 19-20 years of the sale by the registered sale deed executed in favour of the respondents No. 16 to 18 may cause serious prejudice to the respondents, without any corresponding gain to the plaintiff-appellant, till her rights are decided by the learned trial court and a question mark is put on the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents.

The development of the land in question, which has already taken place to the extent of 2/3rd or so, could not be stopped at this stage by the aforesaid blanket order. The said order therefore, deserves to be modified. The said order is modified accordingly and it is directed that any further development or alienation of the suit property upon this land of 7 Bigha 7 Biswa of land by the respondents No. 16 to 18 shall remain subject to the final decision of the suit itself.

The stay application is accordingly disposed of with this modification.

The present appeal may be listed for hearing in the month of January, 2016."

It appears that the appellant-plaintiff to take undue advantage of the said interim order, published the aforesaid public notice quoted above in the newspapers and even went to the extent of informing the Bank with a request that any further transactions and giving of financial assistance, loans etc. with the construction of flats etc. on the said land would be at their own risk, which, inter alia, put the transactions and development of the land by the respondents No. 16 to 18 in a quandary and that is why the present application has been filed by them.

Learned counsels for the respondents No. 16 to 18, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikas Balia and Mr. Narendra Thanvi vehemently submitted that not only the public notice dated 26.09.2015 is a distorted version of the interim order given by this Court on 21.09.2015, but goes ahead and beyond the terms of the interim order dated 21.09.2015. It not only reflects wrongly that the learned counsels for the respondents No. 16 to 18 had agreed about there being a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, which was dismissed by the learned trial court on 20.10.2014 at the threshold, but the said public notice also wrongly and contemptuously goes beyond the terms of the interim order dated 21.09.2015 and warns the public at large preferably not to enter into any transaction or sale or purchase of flats or the developed construction on the said land in question. While submitting that the suit itself was filed after about twenty years of the sale in question in favour of the respondents No. 16 to 18 in 1995 and was filed with an oblique motive and also through a Power of Attorney-holder Mr. Badri Narayan Jat, who deals in the lands as his business, but it is indeed unfortunate that the learned Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff even communicated to the respondents'' Banker-State Bank of India, Jodhpur putting them on guard and also for informing all their Branches not to finance the transactions of the developed construction and flats on this land and if they do so, they will be doing this at their own risk and peril. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 16 to 18 therefore, submitted that it has completely disturbed the normal business transactions by the respondents No. 16 to 18, which was clearly permitted by this Court and this Court clearly observed that the development of land may go ahead, however the same shall remain subject to the final decision of the suit itself. Thus, this kind of media publicity undertaken by the plaintiff-appellant through the counsel, of course, purportedly upon her instructions, has not only interfered with the judicial process of the Court, but has also caused serious prejudice to the respondents No. 16 to 18, in whose favour the earlier blanket stay order was modified by this Court by a detailed and reasoned order on 21.09.2015, which could be challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, if the plaintiff-appellant wanted to do so, but the plaintiff-appellant, by media publicity has sought to achieve the ulterior objectives, which was not in the order dated 21.09.2015 and per se also, such a media publicity in a sub-judice matter could very well be avoided and ought not to have been done at all.

On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Chotia appearing for Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that they need more time to file reply to this application and also that Dr. Sachin Acharya is out of town today, therefore, some more time may be given to the appellant-plaintiff to file reply to this application.

Since earlier, Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary, Advocate was appearing for the plaintiff-appellant when the ad-interim stay order was granted by the coordinate Bench on 06.05.2015 and the public notice in question has also been published in his name, Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary, Advocate was summoned to the Court. Upon appearance, he explained that he has published the said notice and written the letter to the Bank upon the instructions of his client, Mr. Badri Narayan Jat, Power of Attorney-holder of Smt. Sua Devi.

Upon the Court expressing its displeasure for the undue media publicity given to the interim order of this Court also, no regret was expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant.

Having perused the averments made in the application supported by the affidavit and after hearing the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the public notice published in the newspapers about the interim order dated 21.09.2015 passed by this Court and also the letter dated 29.09.2015 of the concerned Advocate of the plaintiff-appellant to the Bank were not called for, and to say the least, it was undesirable and distorted publicity given to the interim order of this Court after hearing the parties concerned to sub-serve the extraneous objectives of the appellant-plaintiff.

The appearance of another Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, namely, Dr. Sachin Acharya in place of Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary in the matter later on is also for the reasons best known to the plaintiff-appellant, but since the public notice is published under the name of earlier Advocate, Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary, and the letter to Bank also was also on his letter head, which facts Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary, Advocate admitted before this Court, this Court is constrained to pass the following order.

This Court is prima facie of the opinion that the publication of the notice in newspapers on 26.9.2015, a copy of which is annexed with the application, is beyond the terms of the interim order dated 21.09.2015 and gives a distorted version of the same. The said public notice as well as the letter dated 29.09.2015 of the Advocate to the State Bank of India, Jodhpur interferes with the process of this Court and has caused or is likely to cause serious prejudice to the respondents No. 16 to 18. The media publicity of the matter sub-judice before the Court, should normally be avoided and if at all such public notice was permitted to be published, they have to be strictly within the four corners of the language of the order passed by the Courts, but that does not appear to be the case here and it interferes with the judicial process of this Court.

Therefore, this Court takes cognizance under the contempt law against the plaintiffs-appellants, Mr. Badri Narayan, the power of attorney and Smt. Sua Devi, leaving aside Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary, Advocate for the time being, subject to further orders to be passed in this regard, since he has claimed that the publication in newspaper as well as the letter to the Bank were addressed on the instructions of the plaintiff-appellant.

The plaintiffs-appellants are also directed to forthwith withdraw the said public notice dated 26.09.2015 and publish the fact of such withdrawal and initiation of these contempt proceedings against them in the same newspapers, in which the aforesaid public notice was published on 26.09.2015 with equal prominence within one week and file the original newspaper with their affidavits, before the next date.

The concerned Advocate, Mr. Natha Ram Choudhary, present in the Court, would also be well advised to withdraw his letter dated 29.09.2015 addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Jodhpur and submit a copy of such letter of withdrawal, alongwith his affidavit before this Court within a period of two weeks from today. The plaintiffs-appellants, Smt. Sua Devi and Shri Badri Narayan Jat are also directed to remain present before this Court on the next date and file reply as to why they may not be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Put up on 05.11.2015.