Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal ... vs Kilari Anand Paul on 10 September, 2024
APHC010056002024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [2605]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
IA 6 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 361/2024
Between:
The Ancient Pattern Pentecostal Church(tappc ...PETITIONER(S)
Society) and Others
AND
Kilari Anand Paul and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SAI SANJAY SURANENI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PARTY IN PERSON
2. YASWANTH GADE
The Court made the following:
This application is filed for setting aside the Order dated 05.09.2024.
2. The Order dated 05.09.2024 reads as under:
"Sri Dr.K.A.Paul @ Kilavi Anand Paul, Review Petitioner has appeared party-
in-person.
2. On 28.08.2024, the Committee of Registrars granted permission to
prosecute this case, appearing 'party-in-person'.
3. In the CRPs, the Review petitioner was respondent. The CRPs were
allowed on 18.06.2024.
4. On hearing the Review petitioner, this Court finds that he is not to be
permitted to appear in person, considering the way of submitting. Further, he
stated, to quote "the Judge has gone so mad in passing the order", and when
objected, he further stated that "I have been misunderstood. The
said statement is for the 'District Judge'."
5. The judgment under review is not by the District Judge.
6. Learned District Judge(s) and any other Judicial Officer(s) are part of
judicial system and play pivotal role in administration of justice. Use of such
language by party-in-person, is highly condemnable.
7. In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, in Re1: the Hon'ble Apex Court,
observed and held at Paragraph Nos.24 & 25 as under :
"24. Thus, it is now settled that abuses, attribution of motives vituperative
terrorism and scurrilous and indecent attacks on the impartiality of the Judges in
the pleadings, applications or other documents filed in the Court or otherwise
published which have the tendency to scandalize and undermine the dignity of the
Court and the majesty of law amounts to criminal contempt of Court.
25. While a litigant as also his lawyer have the freedom of expression
and liberty to project their case forcefully, it must be remembered that they
must while exercising that liberty maintain dignity, decorum and order in the
Court proceeding. Liberty of free expression cannot be permitted to be treated
as a licence to make reckless imputations against the impartiality of the Judges
deciding the case. Even criticism of the judgment has to be in a dignified and
temperate language and without any malice".
8. In Roshan Lal Ahuja, in Re2: the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed and
held at Paragraph No.11 as under :
"11. The tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by
disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order which they desire is on the
increase and it is high time that serious note is taken of the same. No latitude
can be given to a litigant to browbeat the Court. Merely because a party
chooses to appear in person, it does not give him a license to indulge in making
such aspersions as have the tendency to scandalize the court in relation to
judicial matters."
9. The permission granted by the Committee of Registrars to the
Review Petitioner to appear party-in-person is set aside.
10. Let the Review Petitioner appear through counsel.
11. The Review Petitioner may also approach the Andhra Pradesh High
Court Legal Services Committee for providing counsel, if so required.
12. Post on 10.09.2024 as requested.
13. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial)."
3. By order dated 05.09.2024, the review petitioner was permitted to
appear through counsel and was also permitted to approach Andhra Pradesh
High Court Legal Services Committee for providing counsel, if so required.
4. In spite of the aforesaid order, dated 05.09.2024, the review
petitioner is again appearing in person today and has filed this application as
party-in-person.
(1998) 7 SCC 248
1993 Supp (4) SCC 446
5. Once the review petitioner was not permitted to appear as party-in-
person, the application filed by him as party-in-person cannot be maintained.
6. I.A.No.6 of 2024 is dismissed.
7. The review petition is adjourned to 23.09.2024.
8. If the review petitioner again appears in person in this matter,
appropriate proceedings, including contempt proceedings may be drawn against
him.
___________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
Date: 10.09.2024
Dsr
