Mohd. Shamim vs Shahnawaz Khan & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3710 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+        EX.P. 108/2011

                              Judgment delivered on: 1st June, 2012



         MOHD SHAMIM               ..... Decree Holder
                    Through Mr. Shoaib Shakeel, Adv.

                         versus


         SHAHNAWAZ KHAN & ANR         .... Judgement Debtors
                    Through Mr. I. Ahmed, Adv for JD-2.


         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR




1.

Vide orders dated 21.5.12 show cause notice was issued to the

decree-holder Mohd.Shamim as to why contempt proceedings be not

initiated against him. Instead of filing any reply to the show cause notice the

DH has filed his affidavit. In his affidavit he has tendered unconditional

apology for inadvertently hurting the dignity of this court. Decree-holder in

his affidavit has for the first time unequivocally admitted that compromise

was entered into between him and the Judgment debtor and an amount of

Rs. 1 lac was paid to him. The decree-holder has further deposed that the

statement made by him in the mosque in the presence of independent public

witnesses was the true and correct statement and the statements made by

him in court before and after the statement made by him in the mosque are

incorrect. The said affidavit filed by the DH is a clear admission of guilt on

his part of giving a false statement on oath not once but twice in the court.

Under what circumstances this court directed initiation of contempt

proceedings against the DH, narration of facts as already detailed by this

court in its order dated 21.5.2012 would be relevant and the same are

reproduced as under:-

"The present execution petition has been filed by Mr. Mohd. Shamim, decree holder to seek execution of the decree dated 2.9.2008 directing the possession of the premises bearing shop No. 1733, ground floor as shown red in the site plan exhibited PW 1/1 in the main suit in his favour.

Notice of this execution petition was directed to the judgment debtor for 21st September, 2011 and thereafter for 29th March, 2012. On 29th March, 2012, the judgment debtor had appeared along with his counsel Mr. S.D. Ansari who on instructions from the judgment debtor took a stand that the matter has already been compromised between the decree holder and the judgment debtor and in terms of the compromise the judgment debtor has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the decree holder with a view to retain the possession of shop in question. Counsel for the judgment debtor had also produced photocopy of the receipt dated 8 th March, 2012, which was taken on record. Counsel also took a stand that the judgment debtor in fact had paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the decree holder in pursuance to the said compromise. Counsel representing the decree holder on instructions of the decree holder, present in Court, took a stand that no such compromise was entered inter se between the decree holder and the judgment debtor and as per the decree holder the judgment debtor had not stated the truth before this Court. Considering the contradictory stands being taken by both the decree holder and judgment debtor that too before the Court of law, this Court directed both of them to give their statements on oath on the said compromise. Accordingly, statement of decree holder

Mr. Mohd. Shamim and that of the judgment debtor Mr. Mohd. Sharif were recorded in Court where the judgment debtor in his statement deposed that the matter has been compromised between him and Mohd. Shamim. The judgment debtor was shown photocopy of the receipt dated 8 th March, 2012 and he deposed that the original of the same was kept by the decree holder Mohd. Shamim. He also deposed that the said receipt was reduced into writing by one Mr. Alam Khan, Advocate who was accompanying Mohd. Shamim. He also stated that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was paid by him out of the total settlement amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. He further stated that balance amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was agreed to be paid by him within a period of six months. He further deposed that the said receipt was signed by Mohd Shamim in his presence as well as in the presence of Mr. Alam Khan, Mr. Zahangir and Mr. Arab Shah. He further identified signatures of Mohd. Shamim on the said receipt at point „C‟. He also deposed that he could swear upon the holy book Quran Sharif that the said compromise was entered into between him and Mr. Mohd. Shamim. The decree holder Mr. Mohd. Shamim in his statement stoutly denied any such compromise between him and the judgment debtor. He was also shown photocopy of the receipt dated 8th March, 2012 and he took a categorical stand that the same was not signed by him. He took a stand that somebody has forged his signatures on the original receipt. He also took a stand that he did not receive an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from Mohd. Sharif. He further deposed that he could not say as to who has written the said receipt. He identified the signature of his brother on the photocopy of the said receipt at point „B‟. He also denied having any knowledge of the persons with the name of Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate representing him in the main suit being associate of Mr. Pravir K. Jain, Advocate. He also unhesitantly stated that he could also swear upon holy book of Muslims i.e. "Quran Sharif" to say that the said compromise was not entered into between him and the judgment debtor. Both the parties took absolutely conflicting stands and also took a stand that they can swear upon their holy book Quran Sharif to say so. Decree holder Mr. Mohd. Shamim valiantly said that the said compromise was not entered into by him nor any amount was received by him while on the one other hand Mr. Mohd. Sharif took a stand that the said compromise was entered into between the parties and he had paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the decree holder. Because of this peculiar and unusual situation created in the Court and considering the fact that both the parties in their oath voluntarily sworn upon their holy book Quran Sharif this Court had directed both the parties to go to the nearby mosque and take a holy book in their hands and then take a stand about the said compromise. One Mr. K.K. Vyas, DCP, Delhi Police who was present in Court in some other matter was directed to remain present in the mosque along with Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate, who was also present in Court in some other matter and then to report back about the stands as were taken by them after holding holy book Quran Sharif in their hands while standing in the mosque. Both the officers of the Court reported the matter back to the Court and apprised that

the decree holder Mr. Mohd. Shamim had admitted the compromise between the parties and also the execution of the receipt dated 8 th March, 2012. This Court then directed both the said officers to submit their report in writing. On the perusal of the said joint report submitted by both the officers, they have clearly observed that the statement made by Mr. Mohd. Shamim, decree holder in the mosque was totally contrary to the statement made by him before the Court. The relevant paras of the said report are reproduced as under:-

"3. That I have also confronted the statement made by Mohd. Sharif, and Mohd. Shamim, made before this Hon‟ble Court during the oath. That when their statement was confronted it was observed that the statement made by Mohd. Shamim in the mosque, during the oath upon holy book, i.e., „Quran Sharif‟ was totally contrary to the statement he has made before this Hon‟ble Court. It was noticed that the statement of Mohd. Shamim was contradictory/differing."

Before taking any final view on the conduct of the decree holder, the said decree holder was again called upon by this Court to appear in the witness box before the Court and take a correct and truthful position before the Court of law. Statement of Mr. Mohd. Shamim was recorded again and shockingly the decree holder again denied the said compromise with his brother Mr. Mohd. Sharif or any such compromise being reduced into writing. He was again shown photocopy of the receipt dated 8 th March, 2012 and he reiterated his stand that no compromise was entered into between him and Mr. Mohd. Sharif. He, however, admitted the fact that in the mosque he had admitted the execution of the receipt dated 8 th March, 2012 but denied having received an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from Mr. Mohd. Sharif. Once again the Court cautioned the decree holder to take a correct stand before the Court of law and then with great reluctance he said that original receipt was signed by him. He also stated that it was torn off by one Mr. Arab Shah who was present at the time of the execution of the said receipt. He also admitted the fact that the receipt placed on the record is photocopy of the original receipt. He also admitted that he had signed the original receipt dated 8 th March, 2012 and the photocopy of the receipt placed on record is the exact photocopy of the original receipt dated 8.3.2012 bearing his signature at point „C‟. After recording the statement of decree holder on 16.4.2012 the matter was adjourned to 3 rd May, 2012. On 3.5.2012 the earlier counsel representing the decree holder took discharge and the decree holder was again given fresh opportunity to engage another counsel and consequently Mr. A.P. Aggarwal, Advocate is now representing the decree holder.

Looking at the entire gamut of the facts as has been referred above, it is quite evident and at the same time distressing that the present decree holder has no respect for the rule of law and rather has no fear of the Court

of law. Deposing before the Court, the decree holder took one stand and that too by stating that he was prepared to swear upon holy book Quran Sharif and when he was sent to mosque and held the Quran Sharif in his hands he took an absolutely different stand by stating that compromise was entered into between him and the judgment debtor. The decree holder was called again to depose and to take a correct stand but then again he stoutly defended his position as was taken by him before the Court in his statement dated 29th March, 2012 although later he changed his statement and then admitted the compromise.

In the aforesaid backdrop of shifting stands taken by the decree holder, this Court is of the considered view that contempt proceedings should be initiated against the decree holder. Accordingly, let show cause notice be issued to the decree holder as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

The aforesaid order has been passed by the Court in the presence of the decree holder as well as his counsel. The aforesaid order itself would constitute show cause notice.

A reply thereto be filed by the decree holder within a period of one week. List this matter on 29th May, 2012.

Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master to the decree holder."

2. As would be seen from the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the

decree-holder Mohd.Shamim had the audacity to deny the existence of the

compromise between him and the judgment debtor and also the execution

of the receipt dated 8.3.2012 not only once but twice after being

administered oath to speak truth after swearing in the name of God. Both

the decree holder and the judgment debtor being followers of the Islam

religion stoutly claimed that they were even ready to swear on their holy

book „Quran Sharif‟ to support their respective stance. Both the parties had

entered the witness box on 29.3.2012 to take a truthful stand with regard to

the compromise and execution of receipt dated 8.3.2012. The decree-holder

dauntlessly and adamantly denied any such compromise entered into by him

with the judgment debtor or signing of any receipt dated 8.3.2012. The

decree holder even went to the extent of suggesting that somebody has

forged his signatures on the original receipt. He also denied having

received amount of Rs. 1 lac from the judgment debtor and he also showed

his ignorance as to who had written the said receipt. He also boldly stated

that he can swear upon the Holy Book „Quran Sharif‟ that the said

compromise was not entered into between him and the judgment debtor . JD

also entered the witness box and in his deposition he deposed about the

compromise entered into between him and DH. He also deposed that

receipt dated 8.3.2012 was reduced into writing by one Alam Khan

Advocate who was accompanying Mohd.Shamim. He also deposed that a

sum of Rs. 1lac was paid by him to Mohd.Shamim out of the total settled

amount of Rs. 5 lacs. He also deposed that the said receipt was signed by

Mohd.Shamim in his presence and in the presence of Mr.Alam Khan,

Mr.Zahangir and Mr.Arab Shah. He also identified the signatures of

Mohd.Shamim on the said receipt dated 8.3.2012. He also with all fairness

stated that he could swear upon the Holy Book Quran Sharif that the said

compromise was entered into between him and Mohd.Shamim.

The said conflicting stands taken by the DH and the JD were quite

appalling to the court and the court was more shocked as two persons took

diametrically opposite stands not only after being administered an oath and

standing before the court of law but also stood by their stand by swearing

upon their holy Book „Quran Sharif‟.

3. The role of a judge in the system of dispensation of justice is not

to sit as an umpire between two parties and declare at the end of the

combat who has won and who has lost but to play an effective role in the

proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice. This court was

astounded and at the same time perplexed in the peculiar situation as both

the parties could not be stating the truth and one of them was certainly

playing fraud upon the dignity and majesty of the court. This court thus

heeded to the proffer of the decree holder and the judgment debtor and

resorted to the unusual step to allow both the parties to go to a nearby

mosque to swear upon the holy „Quran Sharif‟ and then take a categorical

position with regard to their respective stands, in the wake to ascertain the

truth. The two Local Commissioners appointed by this court in their report

unanimously held that the D.H. had admitted the said compromise and D.H.

was thus found to be not truthful when making a statement before this

court. As would be seen from the aforesaid order dated 21.5.2012

Mohd.Shamim was again directed to enter the witness box to take a truthful

position but having scant regard for the court and intrepid of the

consequences that could ensue Mohd.Shamim again stuck to his previous

stand and again denied the existence of the compromise and execution of

receipt dated 8.3.2012, although in the later part of the statement he made

a vain attempt to improve upon his statement.

4. By virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, this court has the

inherent power to punish for contempt of itself. Contempt jurisdiction

enables the court to ensure proper administration of justice and

maintenance of the rule of law. It is meant to ensure that the courts are able

to discharge their functions properly, unhampered and unsullied by wanton

attacks on the system of administration of justice or on officials who

administer it, and to prevent wilful defiance of orders of the court or

undertakings given to the court. That is why the Supreme Court and the

High Courts have an inherent power to punish for contempt even dehors

legislation pertaining to contempt of court.(Commissioner,Agra vs. Rohtas

Singh 1998CriLJ838). In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of

India and Anr. [1998]2SCR795, it was held that "The purpose of

contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of

law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining "the jury, the judge and

the hangman" and it is so because the court is not adjudicating upon any

claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to protect

the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of justice

from being maligned. In the general interest of the community it is

imperative that the authority of courts should not be imperiled and there

should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice." This

court found the piquing conduct of the decree holder bruising the authority

of this court and exercising its inherent powers, this court issued show

cause notice to the decree holder as to why contempt proceedings be not

initiated against him. The decree holder in its reply tendered an

unconditional apology to the court for his conduct and submitted that the

contempt proceedings be dropped against him. An apology tendered in

contempt proceedings cannot be made a tool to defend the conduct of the

guilty and has to be an evidence of real contrition and consciousness and

remorse of a lie spoken. It would relevant here to refer to the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad(102) vs.

Ashok Khot(2006)5SCC1 wherein it was held as under:

"We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry- and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slipper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to 'say' sorry-it is another to 'feel' sorry.

Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward."

The apology in the present case is nothing but a tactful move by the decree

holder when he found himself in an inescapable position and to only steer

clear of the ire of the Court. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that it is not

the power but the duty of the court to uphold the majesty of the court and

though used with caution, it can, if compelling circumstances arise, to wield

this tool to not let get away the ones who have flouted the dignity of the

court with impunity. Unfortunately, in this matter the wisdom on the decree

holder has dawned a tad too late to give an apology, an apology devoid of

any compunction and realization and thus does not sway the court. Hence,

this court is of the considered view that DH Mohd.Shamim has committed

contempt of the court in the presence of court itself by his brazen falsehood.

5. It is a matter of great concern that litigants so often swear false

affidavits, give false statements on oath being confident of the fact that no

consequences would follow at the end of the case as one party would win

and the other loose. The present circumstances have constrained this court

to call in question the efficacy of the oath administered. The practice of

taking an oath has been in existence in our country since times immemorial

and the Indian Oaths Act, 1873 lived for almost a century. Oath is

administered because it is believed that it has the strongest hold on the

conscience of a man either he believes that God will punish him if he lies on

oath or that it deters him to lie in the presence of God. Oaths have existed

in India since the essence of time in almost all religions. The Hindu

scriptures contain narrations as to how the conscience of a man pricks him,

what rewards await the truthful witness here and in the next world and

what sin and terrible torments in hell are in store for an untruthful witness.

In Muslim Law "Lian" was the testimony confirmed by oath and

accompanied with an imprecation. The Quran says:

"Violate not your oaths, since ye have made God a witness over you.."

And also that:

"Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah: the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then anyone who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul and anyone who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah― Allah will soon grant him a great reward."

The purpose of oath is not to call the attention of God to man but the

attention of man to God, not to call upon him to punish the wrong doer, but

on the witness to remember that He will assuredly do so. (Taylor on

Evidence (1931), Vol 2,p872). But commonly it is believed that the oath is

administered as the main sanction behind oath is the fear of God. The

Oaths Act, 1969 as it is in the present form was enacted after the report of

the 28th Law Commission of India. The Law Commission in its report

discussed the various forms of oath taken by people of various cultures and

it would be of value to cite a few of the observations in this regard. The

Chinese are usually administered oath by the ceremony of breaking a

saucer, with an admonition: „You shall tell the truth and the whole truth the

saucer is cracked, and if you do not tell the truth your soul will be cracked

like the saucer.‟ Another form is for the witness to write sacred characters

upon paper, which he burns, praying that his soul may be similarly burnt if

he swears falsely. In Japan where the concept of oath is unknown, the

witness was directed to snuff a lighted candle declaring that if speaking

falsely his soul will be extinguished like a flame. Hence in all the forms,

whether across countries or religions, oath is a means of reminding the

witness of the presence of the Almighty to put him in a state of mind in

which he would utter only the truth. It is important to note that the Law

Commission was suggested that oath should be based on religion so as to

bind the conscience of the people. It would be relevant here to reproduce

the relevant para of the said discussion as under:

"21. A suggestion has been made that in order that the oath shall bind the conscience of the people, it should be based on religion. In other words, the oath

should be taken on the appropriate religious scripture. It appears that the practice adopted by Muhammadan judges before the advent of the British Rule required that Muhammadans were to be sworn on the Quran and Hindus on the water of the Ganga. This practice was, however, altered by Section 5 of Act 5 of 1840, which was in the following terms:

"Whereas obstruction to justice and other inconveniences have arisen in consequence of persons of the Hindu and Muhammadan persuasion being compelled to swear by the water of the Ganges, or upon the Qutan, or according to other forms which are repugnant to their consciences or feelings: It is hereby enacted, that except as hereinafter provided instead of any oath or declaration now authorized or required by law, every individual of the classes aforesaid within the territories of the East India Company shall make an affirmation to the following effect:

" I solemnly affirm, in the presence of Almighty God, that what I shall state shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

22. Thus, the practice of taking the oath upon a holy book or upon the water of Ganga was abandoned as far back as 1840. It is not likely to succeed if it is revived now. Since 1840, society has become more sophisticated. In our opinion, there should be a uniform form of oath which should apply to all persons alike. Any person may, however, with the permission o the Court, swear an oath in any other form."

What coagulates from the aforesaid is that the Law Commission

recommended that oaths not be abolished but the form of oath be abolished

as the society had become far more sophisticated than when the oaths were

administered according to religion. It is worth pondering over that the facts

of the present case paint a different picture. The development of the society

as noted by the law commission above seems to be illusory in the present

scenario as oath being a potent force to obligate a person to speak the truth

without there being any religious annotations has not been able to yield any

force.

6. The paradox that is emerging in the present state of affairs and

epitomized by the case at hand is distressing to say the least where the

edifice of the justice dispensation system is the pursuit of truth in every

situation; the litigants are lying on the face of the court without any demur.

It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case

of Maria Maargarida S.F. vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria

2012(3)SCALE550 where Hon‟ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari very

eloquently held the importance of truth in the following words:

"32. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty.

33. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth.

35. What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice.

36. In Ritesh Tewari and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : (2010) 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads as under:

Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest

Lord Denning further observed in the said case of Jones (supra) that "'It's all very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage round her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth...."

3. "Satyameva Jayate" (Literally: "Truth Stands Invincible") is a mantra from the ancient scripture Mundaka Upanishad. Upon independence of India, it was adopted as the national motto of India. It is inscribed in

Devanagari script at the base of the national emblem. The meaning of full mantra is as follows:

Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood. Through truth the divine path is spread out by which the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled, reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides.

The Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of

U.P.(2010)2SCC114 observed that a new creed of litigants has emerged

who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood

and unethical means of achieving their goals and remarked as under:

"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral Dart of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do no hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."

The importance of the virtue of truthfulness is intrinsic in all religions and

there can be no religion or scripture that does not tell us to speak the truth

at all times. The „Quran Sharif‟ in Al-Baqara says "And cover not truth with

falsehood, nor conceal the truth when ye know(what it is)" . The decree

holder being a follower of Islam worships the „Quran‟ but did not follow the

abovesaid teaching of Allah and spoke untruth nonchalantly. Our father of

the nation, Mahatma Gandhi said:

"All the religions of the world, while they may differ in other respects, unitedly

proclaim that nothing lives in this world but Truth."

Hence, in the importance of truth can not be overemphasized.

7. For those who believe in God, God is omnipresent in whatever form

and it is the inevitable truth. Here it would be worthwhile to allude to a

story of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Guru Nanak Ji went to Mecca where he traveled

with some Mohammedan travelers who were on a pilgrimage. They reached

Mecca, the holy stone of Kaaba. It was evening and the sun was setting, and

they were very tired; and Guru Nanak Ji immediately fell asleep. The

travelers, the companions, were very much surprised. They used to think of

Guru Nanak as a very holy man, but he was doing something unusual: his

legs were towards the Kaaba when he lay down and fell asleep. They

became very much afraid; this is a sacrilege. And by the time they could do

something about it, the chief priest came, and he said, "Who is this man? Is

he an atheist, he does not believe in God? He does not seem to be a Muslim.

Throw him out of here!" All this noise and talk, and Guru Nanak opened his

eyes, and he said, "What is the matter?"They said, "This cannot be allowed.

Your legs are towards Kaaba, and this is a sin." Guru Nanak Ji laughed

uproariously, and he said, "You can put my legs anywhere you like, but, one

thing before you do it, tell me if this is not so: wherever my legs are, they

will always point towards God - because he is everywhere."

Thus for the believers of God, He is present in every form, all pervasive,

ubiquitous, in the mosque as well as in court alike and more importantly in

our hearts. What is however lamentable and pricks the conscience of this

court is that the decree holder differentiated between the court and the

mosque as if God is present only in the mosque and not in Courts. For those

who do not wish to swear in the name of God, the Oaths Act provides for

making an affirmation but the decree holder in the present case took the

oath in the name of God. It is often said that courts are temples of justice

and if that being the position how one can be untruthful before the temple

of justice and be truthful standing at the place of worship. The decree

holder while swearing in the name of God in the courtroom not once but

twice spoke untruth but while in mosque he spoke the truth which has not

only perverted the course of justice but also questioned the sanctity of the

oath administered in the court.

8. Admittedly, more often than not the courts are hesitant to initiate

perjury and contempt proceedings against such unscrupulous litigants and

even if initiated they take much time in final culmination. But in the present

circumstances, this court is of the considered view that Mohd. Shamim has

committed contempt of court in the face of the court. He has also committed

a greater sin by repeating his untruthful and false stand in the court on

21.5.12 after speaking truth in mosque. The present case is a glaring

example of the conduct of the likes of DH Mohd.Shamim who perhaps have

no fear of law and therefore such unscrupulous litigants have to be dealt

with an iron hand there being no room for leniency or indulgence.

9. Therefore, by the powers granted to this court under Article 215 of

the Constitution of India, this court holds the decree holder Mohd. Shamim

guilty of contempt.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J June 01, 2012