Venkat Narayan Reddy vs B.V. Ananth Reddy

Srinivasachari, J.—This application is by one Venkat Narayan Reddy under Sections 115 and 151, CPC Sections 2 & 3, Contempt of Courts Act, and Article 226 of the Constitution, filed against one B. Venkat Anant Reddy, praying that a proceeding be taken against the Respondent B. Venkat Redely for contempt of Court and dismiss his defence in the suit and the miscellaneous petition pending in the lower Court.

It would appear that the Respondent obtained a decree against the Petitioner in the District Court Secunderabad and the judgment-debtor in hat decree, who is Petitioner before us, filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Secunderabad, for setting aside the decree on the ground that the decree was obtained by fraud and on other grounds. his suit, we find from the record, has now been transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Secunderabad, and is pending there.

In the application seeking this Court''s jurisdiction to proceed against the Respondent for contempt of Court, the Petitioner has stated that the Respondent filed an application to transfer the suit that was pending in the Subordinate Court to the District Court, Secunderabad, on frivolous grounds and therein attacked two Judges of the Subordinate Court, the trying Judge, and Shri Kuricn, who also acted as Subordinate Judge for some time. The allegation of the Respondent in those petitions was that certain orders were passed against him on account of prejudice.

The Petitioner before us now says that although the Judges about whom these allegations were made had remarked that the allegations were of a serious character, they did not choose to take proceedings against the Respondent for contempt of Court; the Petitioner is now endeavouring to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for steps being taken against the Respondent for contempt of Court. We heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the Petitioner and that of the Respondent himself, who appeared in person.

We may point out that we are fully alive to the fact that the High Court would be very zealous in maintaining the dignity and prestige of the subordinate Courts. The fountain of justice must not be obstructed and sullied. The seat of justice has always been regarded as the seat of divine truth and justice.

Clause (i) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act gives statutory recognition to the inherent powers of the High Court to punish contempt of itself and also its subordinate Courts. In all contempt matters, the Court has a discretion whether to commit a person for contempt or not. Lord Porter observed in - AIR 1945 147 (Privy Council) , as follows:

But it must be remembered that the question of committal or non-committal is one for the exercise of the discretion of the. Court before whom the application to commit is brought, and unless there is found to be a serious disregard of the principles of natural justice, their Lordships would be slow to interfere with that discretion.

In certain cases, having regard to the particular circumstances therein, it would serve the interests of justice if we sound a note of warning to the person who has been responsible for making reckless remarks. This we would do in the interests of justice in order that the interest of the parties may not suffer eventually by reason of magnifying the proceedings relating to the alleged contempt of Court. There is no doubt the Respondent has made random irresponsible remarks in his application. He appears to be rather over emotional and touchy.

There has been an enormous delay in the disposal of this ease, though the Respondent has been not a little responsible for this delay, because of the numerous applications that he flooded the Court with. We feel that, more than anything else, this case which has been pending in the lower Court should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by hearing the case day to day. We find that the records of the lower Court have been called here in connection with these proceedings before us.

After giving considerable thought over the matter now before us, and in view of the fact that the learned Judges of the lower Court, did not move for contempt, we think that, the interests of justice would be met if we sound a note of severe warning to the Respondent to behave himself property and maintain the decorum of the Court, keeping himself within the bounds of law in making his applications and submissions to the Court, and not hamper the progress of the case by putting in frivolous and vexatious applications. Tact, patience and straightforward conduct arc essential in the prosecution of one''s case.

We are sure that the Respondent would act upto our directions and help the lower Court in the disposal of the case. As we have pointed out, we are disposing of this application by contenting ourselves with sounding a note of warning to the Respondent. But we would make it clear that if at any future time, we get a report staling that he has been responsible for making reckless and undignified remarks about the Court, we would take a very serious view of the matter and lake such steps as we think proper.

The case is sent back to the trial Court with the direction that the case be heard from day to day and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.