In Re Piyush Verma,A.D.S.J. vs Ajay Pandey, Advocate
2015 Latest Caselaw 641 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

(AFR)
 
Reserved on 04.05.2015
 
Delivered on 25.05.2015
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 3 of 2013
 

 
Applicant :- In Re: Piyush Verma, Additional District & Sessions Judge
 
Opposite Party :- Ajay Pandey, Advocate
 
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta, J.

(Delivered by Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This Criminal Contempt Application has been registered pursuant to Reference made by Sri Piyush Verma , Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Ex Cadre I), Auraiya, vide his letter dated 27.08.2012, forwarded by Dr. Murtaza Ali, District Judge, Auraiya, vide his letter dated 06.11.2012. Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 17.01.2013 approved for placing this matter before the appropriate Bench having determination of criminal contempt. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 03.10.2013, this Court issued notice to Sri Ajay Pandey, Advocate , the contemnor , to file reply to Reference and explain as to why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") be not initiated.

2. In brief the complaint made by Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex Cadre-1) is that the contemnor is continuously harassing judicial officers with his contemptuous writings and levelling contemptuous allegations against them. An application dated 13.08.2012 submiitted by contemnor in Misc. Case No.14 of 2012 Ajay Pandey Vs State of U.P. has been appended alongwith Reference letter in which he said that:

"ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vkSj is'kdkj dh nqHkkZouk vkSj /kks[kk/kMh dk ifj.kke gS"

" This is the result of fraud and mala fide bore by Presiding Officer and Reader"

3. Another application dated 13.08.2012 was submitted by Sri Ajay Pandey in Misc. Case No.8 of 2012 wherein he alleged that

" fnukad 09-08-12 dks ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dh ,slh vk[;k i<+dj ek- ftyk tt us dgk fd bl dksVZ ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vkSj is'kdkj] nksuksa gh nqHkkZoukiwoZd dk;Z dj jgs gSa vkSj bl izdkj ls izk- i= fujLr djuk flok /kks[kk/kM+h ds vkSj dqN Hkh ugha gSA "

"On 9.8.2012 after going through the report of Presiding Officer, learned District Judge said that Presiding Officer and Reader both are acting with mens rea and thus, rejection of application is nothing but a fraud." (English Translation by Court)

4. In Misc. Case No. 17 of 2012 Sri Ajay Pandey stated:

" Fkkuk dksRkokyh ls ,d O;fDr ih;w"k oekZ dh dksVZ ls tkjh QthZ vkSj >wBh uksfVl fcuk vU; fdlh dkxt ds izkFkhZ dks nsus vk;k "

"A man from Kotwali Police Station came to serve on the applicant a forged and false notice without any supportive document."

" .....blfy;s ih;w'k oekZ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh vius "kM;a= esa lQy ughas gks ldsA "

" ...... therefore, Piyush Verma, Presiding Officer could not succeed in his conspiracy."

5. That It is also stated that this contemnor is habitual in as much as earlier also, he was held guilty of contempt by Apex Court in Re. Ajay Pandey AIR 1997 SC 260, and in paragrapn 43, 46, 47 the Apex Court said:

"43. Having seen the entire record, we are fully satisfied that the contemner, by questioning the conduct of the Judges through his notice and demanding apology and compensation from them as also the complaint lodged against them, especially in the language employed by him, is guilty of the "criminal contempt" and is liable to be punished therefor in both the cases."

"46. Having convicted the contemner for obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten and overawe the Court by using insulting and disrespectful language and issuing notices and also launching criminal prosecution against two Hon'ble Judges, we sentence the contemner for the offence of criminal contempt as under:

(a) The contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On serving this sentence for two weeks, the remaining sentence shall stand suspended for a period of two years and may be activated in case the contemner is convicted for any other offence of contempt of court within the said period. He shall be taken into custody forthwith but will be released after two weeks, to be taken into custody again if and when his remaining sentence stands activated."

"47. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of accordingly."

(emphasis added)

6. On 3.10.2013 this Court passed an order and paragraphs no. 4,5,6,7 and 8 thereof read as under:

"The certified copy of Misc. No. 17 of 2012 has been enclosed, in which Mr. Ajay Pandey has made frivolous allegation that on 22/23.4.2012 Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ex-cadre 1st, Auraiya went to meet a person at Auraiya, Thana, Kotwali, with forged order and notice of the court relating to Misc. No. 8 of 2012.

In this Reference it is stated by Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ex-cadre 1st, Auraiya that Sri Ajay Pandey has made false, derogatory remarks not only against me and my court but in the similar fashion he has casted serious aspersions against judicial system of the country which tends to lowering dignity of the courts. Enclosure 4 annexed with this application herewith is a copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 S. C. p. 260. This judgment reveals Mr. Ajay Pandey imputed the court and made fictitious allegations against Hon'ble Justices of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court respectively. Hon'ble Supreme Court found him guilty of serious contempt of court and punished him accordingly. Despite being punished for contempt of court, Sri Ajay Pandey did not cure his mischievous attitude, is still indulged in the same kind of contemptuous activities through his defamatory writing against each and every court.

Sri Ajay Pandey filed an objection in Surety application No. 49/202 in which the question was raised about the manner of the court for granting bail and also accused that in the beginning, the court rejects the bail application on the pretext of being non-bailable crime till immoral compromising culminated between the accused and the court, When immoral discussion is completed, non-bailable Crime is converted into bail-able Crime, in continuation of it 6 accused were surprisingly granted the bail on 20.7.2012, while the bail of Sri Vikas Kumar and Sri Prem Nath Bisnoi was rejected on same date,this shows that the court is biased in nature. Shri Ajay Pandey moved an application for contempt of court alleged to be committed by Spl. Judge ADJ (Anti-Dacoity), this application too is in itself defamatious and contemptuous in nature.

In the Complaint no. 826/09 fixed date 01.04.2011, Panjab National Bank Vs.Dilasram, in the said case the name and signatures of Sri S.N. Pandey, Advocate Sri Ajay Pandey, Advocate were not found in the filed Vakalatnama, by which Sri Ajay Pandey has deliberately tarnished the dignity of the court."

The order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the J.M. Court in Misc. no. 87/2012 on 11.04.2012 reveals that the court called out Sri Ajay Pandey, applicant to appear in the court in person in the received P.S. Paper bearing No. 95 G, 1-7. The applicant appeared in the court and applicant Sri Ajay pandey said pass the order immediately, the court said that the order will be passed after going through the P.S. Report in the mean while the applicant Sri Ajay Pandey began to say that "Saare Judge beiman hai' Abhi order Pass karo Nahi to tumhe dekh lunga, tumhara C.J.M pandit ke nam par kalank hai' maine pahale bhi taman judges ki shikayat ki hai tum sab ki karunga". The court repeatedly asked and warned the applicant not to abuse but the applicant became so furious that despite warning went on abusing and disrupting the business of the court and the applicant even did not spare the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this way the act of Sri Ajay Pandey did not only tarnish the image of the court but lowered down the dignity of the court also that falls under purview of the contempt." (emphasis added)

7. On 11.12.2013 the contemnor appeared before the Court and said that he has not received copy of Reference alongwith notice. The Court directed the office to supply the same through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraia. Pursuant thereto notice alongwith copy of Reference was sent to the contemnor. He however, refused to receive the notice alongwith the copy of Reference and to this effect, a separate report was submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya on 30.11.2013. The contemnor was also required to appear before the Court on 12.12.2013 but he did not appear . Consequently, this Court , looking to the conduct of contemnor issued non-bailable warrant vide order dated 12.12.2013 fixing 13.01.2014 for appearance and further proceedings.

8. The contemnor appeared before the Court on 13.1.2014 and stated that he is unaware of the fact as to why he has been detained in jail and required to tell him under which provision he was put in detention. He further stated that he never refused to accept notice or any other paper and, therefore, he is not in a position to submit reply . He also raised plea of limitation with respect to contempt proceedings. The Court again, looking to his grievance that he did not possess copy of notice and Reference, directed special counsel Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, who was nominated to assist the contemnor, to supply the said documents on that very date and granted time to file reply fixing 28th April 2014.

9. On the next date the contemnor raised a plea that no Reference vide letter dated 30.8.2012 was received by the Court for which, the Court passed an order for making an inquiry and submit a report by the office. The office report was again considered on 9.7.2014 and the Court passed the following order:

"In the previous order dated 28.4.2014 a doubt has been expressed whether the alleged Reference letter of District Judge, Auraiya was indeed received in the Registry of this Court within one year.

Review Officer of Contempt Section appeared and produced the Reference letter which shows that the said letter was received on 5.9.2012 in the Central Dak Section and the officer concerned sent it to the Registrar (Confidential) on 6.9.2012. A dispatch register was also produced by the Review Officer which shows that it was received in the office of Admn.-C on 11.09.2012.

List on 12.08.2014 and on that date contemnor, Ajay Pandey shall again ensure his presence." (emphasis added)

10. Again when the matter came up before the Court on 26.11.2014, the contemnor raised objection regarding limitation and also said that Reference was never received from the subordinate court, whereupon, Court directed Mr Sudhir Mehrotra to examine the matter and apprise the Court about correct facts.

11. The contemnor then filed his affidavit sworn on 15th April 2014, raising certain preliminary objections as under:

(i) First, that original contempt Reference letter dated 27.8.2012 has never been received by this Court and proceedings can not go on the basis of Photostat copy.

(ii) Second, that Judicial Officer who has made Reference himself is a tainted judicial officer and therefore Court should decline to initiate any contempt proceeding in vied of order dated 17/30.1.2013 . The contempt petition is bogus and rendered barred by time on 26.8.2013.

(iii) No officer with designation of Piyush Verma Additional District Judge (Ex Cadre 1) , Auraiya existed on that date on the roll of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of U.P. Sri Piyush Verma was reverted to the post of Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) on 28.03.2013 and was transferred from Auraiya to Jalaun in the same capacity .

(iv) The Registry sent a blank notice without mentioning address of contemnor and without annexing phototat copy of contempt petition. The proceedings are invalid in view of provisions of Section 17(2) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971(hereinafter referred to "as Act 1971") and Rule 6, Chapter 35(E) of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

(v) Nobody attempted to serve notice upon contemnor since he was at Delhi from 13.11.2013 to 30.11.2013.

(vi) Sri Piyush Verma, Judicial Officer has concealed several facts in his Reference letter dated 27.8.2012.

12. When this matter was taken up on 4th May 2015, Sri Ajay Pandey stated that he is not guilty of any contempt, for the reason that there is no valid Reference pending against him, and, the court should first answer his preliminary objections which go to the route of the matter. He said that there is no valid Reference made by subordinate Court, copy of Reference and notice was not given to him and that contempt is barred by limitation.

13. The first objection with regard to maintainabiity of these proceedings raised by the contemnor is that since there is no valid Reference under Section 15(2) made by subordinate Court therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated in law and are not maintainable. What he submitted is that the original letter alleged to have been sent by Piyush Verma, Judicial Officer concerned is not available on record and only photocopy is available which can not constitute a valid Reference.

14. What we find from record is that the original copy of the letter dated 27.8.2012 said to have been sent by Sri Piyush Verma is not available on record. Photocopy of said letter and original copy of the letter dated 6.11.2012 of District Judge, Auraiya are available. What appears from record is that Sri Piyush Verma sent letter dated 27.8.2012 to this Court through proper channel i.e., District Judge, Auraiya, complaining about conduct of contemnor, constituting criminal contempt and for initiation of contempt proceedings. The aforesaid letter is reported to have been received in the office of District Judge Auraiya in his register at Serial No.268/I dated 28.8.2012, and on the same date, District Judge made endorsement " forwarded" . As per the record of the District Judge, Auraiya, aforesaid letter of Sri Piyush Verma, concerned judicial officer was sent to this Court by Registered Post on 30.8.2012 . Thereafter in D.C. Case No. 257 of 2012 the District Committee of Bar Council of U.P. delivered an order dated 23.9.2012 suspending contemnor Ajay Pandey enrolment No. U.P. 00377/1987 from practising as an Advocate, till his life. Copy of aforesaid order of Bar Council was forwarded by Sri Piyush Verma to this Court through District Judge Auraiya, which was also received in the office of District Judge, vide entry No.925/I dated 6.10.2012. On the same date, the District Judge, made endorsement "forwarded". When this letter was forwarded by District Judge Auraiya on 6.10.2012 and was received in this Court, it was found that initial letter dated 27.8.2012 was not available and therefore, vide letter dated 20.10.2012 sent by Sri Ajit Singh HJS, Offiicer on Special Duty, High Court Allahabad, the District Judge Auraiya was requested to provide copy of contempt application submitted by Sri Piyush Verma, as mentioned in District Judge, Auraiya's letter dated 6.10.2012 It is in pursuance thereof, the District Judge, Auraiya vide letter dated 6.11.2012 sent photocopy of letter of Sri Piyush Verma dated 27.8.2012, exhibiting endorsement of "received" thereon in the office of District Judge, Auraiya on 28.8.2012 . This letter of District Judge was received in this Court on 9.11.2012, whereupon Registry proceeded to make a note and alongwith Registrar General's noting dated 9.1.2013, the matter was placed before Contempt Committee constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for processing of such matters before taking a decision wherein initiation of criminal contempt would be justified. A three Judges Committee consisting of Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh J, Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J and Hon'ble B.K.Narayana J, on 9.1.2013 recommended for initiation of criminal contempt , whereupon the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice (Hon'ble Shiv Kirti Singh J, as his lordship then was) who approved it on 17.1.2013. It is thereafter, the matter was placed before the Court and came up before a Division Bench on 10.7.2013, when it was directed to be listed in the next cause list. Thereafter notice was issued on 3.10.2013.

15. With regard to the question of original letter dated 27.8.2012 sent by Sri Piyush Verma, pursuant to this Court's order dated 16.2.2015, an inquiry was made by Registry and the report submitted by Section Officer, Contempt Section dated 29.4.2015, stated that letter dated 27.8.2012 was received in Admin 'C' Section on 11.9.2012. The fact of the matter is that record of the Registry shows that original letter sent by Sri Piyush Verma was actually received in Admin Section on 11.9.2012, but thereafter somehow it got misplaced. The Court obtained a copy thereof through District Judge, Auraiya, who sent a photostat copy thereof to this Court. Photocopy of the receipt and receiving register of Registrar (Confidential) is available on record, wherein at serial number 22 the entry made reads as under:

"Auraiya: Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District & Sessions 			Judge (Ex Cadre), Auraiya
 
No.-268/I dated 28.08.2012 
 
		   	Subject : About contemptuous activities of person 				     named Ajay Pandey against every Court  				       in this 	Judgeship (with encl."
 
16.	Similarly photocopy of despatch/receiving register of  Registrar General's Office dated 6.9.2012  is also on record and at serial No.53, the entry reads as under:
 
"No.768/I   Dated 28/8/12
 
From : Shri Piyush Verma, ADJ,Ex-cadre, Auraiya, 
 
Sub : About contemptuous activities of person named    	Ajay Pandey against every Court in this 	Judgeship." 
 

17. There is also a report of Section Officer, Central Dak Section, dated 28.5.2014, stating that Sri Piyush Verma's letter dated 27.8.2012 was received on 05.09. 2012 in Central Dak Section, wherefrom it was sent to Private Secretary to Registrar General the same day. Photocopy of register of Speed Post maintained by Private Secretary to Registrar General, is also on record, showing entry of the aforesaid letter.

18. Photocopy of Sri Piyush Verma's letter dated 27.8.2012 showing endorsement of various offices of this Court is also on record. It leaves no doubt that letter sent by Sri Piyush Verma on 27.8.2012 complaining about the conduct of contemnor and for initiation of contempt proceedings was actually received in Court but original letter somehow got misplaced. However, photostat copies are on record.

19. Now the question is, whether mere fact that original letter sent by concerned Judicial Officer, making Reference, if not available in Court's record, will it vitiate criminal contempt proceedings only for this reason.

20. The contemnor has gone to the extent of suggesting that Sri Piyush Verma was an Ex-cadre Additional District Judge, and had no authority to make a Reference himself. In any case, once original letter sent by Sri Piyush Verma is not on record, there is no valid Reference and, therefore, no contempt proceedings under Section 15(2) of Act 1971 can either be initiated or be continued against him.

21. In our view, the submission is hyper technical, fallacious and misconceived. Section 15(2) of Act 1971 which deals with the power of criminal contempt of Subordinate Court, by which proceedings can be initiated by this Court, on a Reference received from Subordinate Court, nowhere states a particular manner in which such a Reference has to be made by concerned Judicial Officer. The only requirement under Section 15(3) is that Reference made shall specify contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. Section 15(2) and 15(3) of Act 1971 reads as under :

"15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. .........

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation:- In this section, the expression "Advocate-General" means-

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General;

(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established.

(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."

22. Under the Rules framed by this Court dealing with contempt proceedings, there is no specific manner or procedure in which Reference is required to be made by Subordinate Court. The term 'Reference', in our view, is nothing but a simple communication to this Court of the incident which has occurred in Subordinate Court, having the effect of maligning its reputation and lowering down its authority etc. In other words, it is nothing but an information given by Subordinate Court to this Court. It is not a word of art and not to be construed in a pedantic and technical manner. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of D.B. Vohra 1974, Cr. L.J. 899 held that Reference is nothing but an information of a particular matter to this Court.

23. In another matter, Kerala High Court in Berely v. Xaviery, 1988 Cr.L.J. 90 said that the word 'Reference' under Section 15(2) has no technical connotation, but only means conveying information.

24. This Court has also made Rules under Section 23 of Act 1971 to govern presentation and hearing of contempt cases, coming to this Court under Act 1971. Chapter 35-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 contains Rules in this regard. Rule 2 thereof only provides that when a Reference is made, it will clearly mention at the head whether it relates to commission of 'Civil Contempt' or 'Criminal Contempt'. Rule 3 provides that the Reference made shall contain, in precise language, the statement setting forth facts constituting contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty and shall specify the date or dates on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Nothing further is mentioned regarding the manner in which criminal contempt proceedings shall be initiated by this Court in respect of Subordinate Court on receiving the Reference.

25. In our view, copy of the letter of Sri Piyush Verma is available on record satisfies the aforesaid requirements and the mere fact that the original document or letter is not on record, shall have no consequence regarding validity or initiation of proceedings of criminal contempt by this Court. Though loss of a document is a serious matter, for which, on administrative side, appropriate proceedings and action may be taken against the person responsible but that will have not have any consequence on the statutory proceedings on judicial side, as has been sought to be argued by contemnor vehemently.

26. We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting his submission that there is no valid Reference, hence the proceedings of criminal contempt are vitiated in law and can not continue.

27. The second submission deals with the status of Sri Piyush Verma, i.e. Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex-cadre). Service details of Sri Piyush Verma are on record. He joined judicial service as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 9.9.1993 and was confirmed on 22.8.2000. He was appointed/ promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 3.1.2002 and was given a short term appointment in Fast Track Court as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur on 6.6.2006, whereafter, he continued to work in Fast Track Court as Additional District & Sessions Judge at various places. The posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Fast Track Courts came to be designated as "Ex Cadre posts" when posts in Fast Track Courts were sanctioned by State Government as Ex-cadre. That is how Sri Piyush Verma when made Reference on 27.8.2012, showed his designation as "Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ex Cadre), Auraiya". We are also of the view that this aspect has nothing to do with the validity of contempt proceedings, as alleged by contemnor Ajai Pandey. His objection in this regard is thoroughly without any substance.

28. The next contention that Sri Piyush Verma himself was a tainted Officer and reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) subsequently would also make no difference since this fact by itself can not justify or give licence or liberty to contemnor to use contemptuous language against the Presiding Officer of Court in respect of his order or functioning in the Court.

29. The last objection is regarding limitation. The alleged act of contemnor constituting contempt is reported to have been committed by him on 11.04.2012 and onwards. Reference was made on 27.08.2012 which was received in this Court on 5.9.2012. It was placed before the Court on 30.1.2013. Thereafter, the matter was listed on several dates though could not be taken up by the Bench concerned. All the dates are shown in the order-sheet.

30. The question as to when limitation under section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would commence for the purposes of determining whether contempt initiated is within limitation or not, has been examined by a three Judges Bench of Apex Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others, (2001) 7 SCC, 549. Therein Court confirmed a Full Bench Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Manjit Singh v. Sarshan Singh, 1984, Cri. LJ 301 (P&H) (FB) and has quoted para 13 and 19 of said judgment. While agreeing with the view taken by High Court, the Court said that "lastly in cases of criminal contempt of a Sub-ordinate Court on a reference made by it, the proceedings must be deemed to be initiated from the date when such a reference is made". Having said so in para 14 of the said judgment, the Court said above " in other words, the beginning of the action prescribed for taking cognizance of criminal contempt under Section 15 would be initiating the proceedings for contempt and the subsequent action taken thereon of refusal or issuance of a notice or punishment thereafter are only steps following or succeeding such initiation. Similarly, in the case of a civil contempt, filing of an application drawing the attention of the court is necessary for further steps to be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

31. In view of what has been said by Apex Court in Pallav Sheth (supra) and Manjit Singh (Supra), and treating even the first date 11.4.2012 as the date on which the act constituting contempt was committed by contemnor, the reference was made on 27.8.2012, which came before the Court on 30.1.2013. It is within one year, hence can not be said to be barred by limitation.

32. The contemnor has cited several authorities in support of his submissions that he has not been given notice properly. We find that the Court before framing charge, issued notice to the contemnor giving him opportunity to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Under Rules 4 and 5, Chapter 35-E of Rules 1952, when the matter is presented before the Bench, the Court, if prima facie, satisfied that the allegations contained make out a case of contempt of Court against the person concerned, it shall reduce into charge or charges and notice shall be issued with respect to those charge(s) only. Notice was issued alongwith Reference and the Court's order. In respect of receipt thereof, the contemnor took the plea that he was not served therewith, though the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, submitted a report that the contemnor refused to receive the same.

33. Be that as it may, it is not disputed before this Court that on 4.5.2015 when we heard the matter, requisite documents like Reference order, Court's order etc., were already received and possessed by contemnor. Therefore, if the said documents were not earlier received by him, even if we assume this fact to be correct, as he is alleging, now these documents have been served upon him, it will not have any adverse effect on the proceedings as requirement of Law stands complied. All the preliminary objections, therefore, stand rejected.

34. Though, the order dated 3.10.2013 contains all the allegations which constitute charges against the contemnor, but in order to make the things further clear and to be more specific, we directed the contemnor to remain present in Court on 25.5.2015 for framing charge/charges.

Order Date :- 25.5.2015

Cps/Akn