Ganges Printing Ink And Ors. vs Mr. Sardari Lal Duggal And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 251 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1 was the tenant of R-1 at 1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. It seems that some disputes arose between them and R-1 moved some application before the Calcutta High Court in a pending proceedings between petitioner No. 1 and Punjab National Bank which was rejected by order dated 5.6.1996 with liberty to R-1 to take appropriate eviction proceedings against petitioner under law. Thereafter R-1 filed Suit No. 1778/96 for possession of first floor of the premises before this court in which he filed a replication allegedly admitting payment of rent by petitioner up to April 1996. It is also alleged that R-1 admitted in these proceedings that rent for the premises was tendered by money order up to March 1997 which was not accepted but suppressing all these facts R-1 later filed an eviction petition before Additional Rent Controller for eviction of petitioner from the premises and had obtained eviction order dated 2.7.1999.

2. Petitioner's case is that R-1 had misled the court of Additional Rent Controller by withholding the facts/documents and pleadings before Calcutta High Court and this court and had filed a false application and affidavit and obtained an ex-parte eviction order on the ground of non-payment of rent and by indulging in this had committed a fraud on this court and that of Additional Rent Controller and the Criminal contempt also.

3. R-1 who is said to have filed an application before the Calcutta High Court and the suit before this court had died meanwhile and R-2 is his daughter and was his general of attorney holder at the relevant time. She has filed a reply to this petition claiming that it had become infructuous with the death of R-1 and in terms of Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act. Allegations of indulging in any falsehood or committing any fraud on the court of ARC or this court are denied by her. According to her, R-1, had submitted the correct facts before ARC in his eviction petition and he was not obliged to plead anything with regard to any litigation with which he was not concerned or to which he was not a party.

4. L/C for petitioner has pressed in service DB judgment of this court in Satish Khosla v. Ranbaxy Limited to show that non-disclosure of pendency of any earlier litigation between the parties and withholding or non-production of documents which was relevant to the litigation amounted to committing of a fraud on the court and also contempt of court.

5. While this matter was under consideration, it transpired that petitioners had applied for setting aside of the ex-parte eviction order before the Controller where proceedings were pending. Apart from that, it does not appear to us that R-1 could be rendered liable for any criminal contempt of this court even if it was assumed that he had failed to disclose the contents of any application filed by him before the Calcutta High Court or any replication in the suit before this court.

6. Criminal contempt as defined in Section 2 of contempt of Courts Act, 1971 connotes the publication of any matter or doing of any other act which scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. It is not petitioner's case that alleged withholding some information or documents had interfered with judicial process or had obstructed the course of justice or had lowered the authority of this court of for that matter ARC. His only complaint is that but for this ARC would not have passed the eviction order against him on the ground of non-payment of rent. This, in our view, does not interfere with the judicial process or proceedings nor would it obstruct the course of justice. More so because if petitioner's contention was upheld, it would result in setting aside of the eviction order in an appropriate remedy.

7. We have also examined the DB judgment of this court relied upon by petitioner's counsel which is wholly distinguishable because the court in that case before it had found a fraud having been committed by the litigating party in the fact and circumstances of the case. We have not come across any proposition laid down in this which holds that non-disclosure or withholding of any information or document in any allied or earlier litigation between the parties amounted to a criminal contempt of court in all events and circumstances.

8. Considering all this and also that R-1, against whom petitioner had initiated the contempt action, had since died and petitioner had sought setting aside of ex-parte eviction order before the Controller, we find no merit in this petition. Notice is recalled, proceedings dropped and petition dismissed.