MAJOR R. S. MURGAI(RETD.)versusMAJOR P. N. KAUSHIK (RETD.) & ORS.

     936

A                       MAJOR R. S. MURGA! (RETD.)
                                            v.
                  MAJOR P. N. KAUSHIK (RETD.) & ORS.

                                   October 12, 1979
•                 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]

       Contempt of Court Act, s. 2(c)-Written submissions filed by one of the
    parties pursuant to the directions of the· court after the Judgment was reserv..


C
    ed. If private comniunication tending to interfere lVith the due course of justice.

      When one of the partiCs to a case pursuant to the directions of the court,
                                                                                                ,
    makes written submissions after the Judgment was reserved, such submissions
    ca.nnot be cilled private communication to the Judge.       They cannot be &aid
    to have prejudiced, interfered with or tepded to interfere with the due course
    of justi"' within the meaning of s. 2(c) (ii) of the Contempt of Court Act. These
    submissions formed part of the record. [937 B-D]

D       In the instant case in his counter affidavit filed after the Judgment wao
    reserved the .respondent stated that he was filing the Statements pursuant to
    the directions of !he Company Judge. The High Court was justified in de,.
    clining to issue a notice for contempt against the respondents. [937 A·E]

       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 427
    of 1978.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 17-10-1978 of the                      Delhi
    High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7 /78.
        Appellant in person.
        K. N. Bhat for Respondent No. 1
        R. P. Bhatt, R. B. Datar and Girish Chandra for Respondent 2.
       P. G. Gokhale, B. R. Aggarwal, Jenendra'Lal and M. S. Diwan for
    Respondent No. 3.
        'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
        F AZAL ALI, J. 'This is an appeal against an order passed by the                  /
    Delhi High Court refusing to initiate contempt proceedings against the                    ....
    respondents. It appears that a contempt matter was pending before a
    Single Judge, Delhi High Court which was heard at length and the
    judgment was reserved on the 9th December, 1977. The judgment                             _,.,.._        ,

                                                                                                        .... ~
H   was actually deliwred on 28-4-1978 and in between these two dates
    certain written submissions were made by the respondents to the Court
    which the appellant describes in his petition as private communications
                 R. s. :M:tlRGAI v. p, N. KAUSHIK (Fazal Ali, J.)         937


      to the Company Judge. The respondent P. N. Kaushik in para 36 of
      the counter-affidavit has made a specific allegation, that at the time
      <Jf reserving the judgment the Company Judge had directed the parties
•      to submit their written submissions regarding the points at issue before
      the judgment is deHvered. The submissions in question were submitted
       on various dates i.e. 12-12-77 by Major Kaushik, 23-1-78 and 15-2-78
       by the Director-G1meral of Resettlement. As these submissions were
     'made in pursuance. of the order of the Court, they cannot be held to
                                                                                    •
       be private communications to the Company Judge in order to decide
       the case. As these docnments were filed before the Court under the
      directions of the Court itself, it cannot be said by an stretch of imagi-
•   . nation that these documents prejudiced, interfered or tended to
      interfere with the due course of justice within the meaning of Sec-
                                                                                    c
       tion 2(c) (ii) and therefore, would not constitute criminal contempt
       within the meaning of section 2 ( c) of the Contempt of Court Act.
       These submissions .form part of the record and, therefore, there is no
     ·question of their being regarded rui private communications from a
       litigant to a Judge. On the• contrary, the Director-General of Resettle-     D
       ment was appointed as the administrator by the Court itself and being
       an officer of the court, he was at liberty to make submissions to the
      court in respect c.f the case in question. The High. Court therefore
      was fully justified :in declining to issue any notice for contempt against
      the respondents on the submis~ions filed by .the appellant. We would
      :refrain from making any comment regarding the .merits of the appeal         E
      which the appellant has filed before the Division Bench against the
      order of the Comfany Judge dated 28th April, 1978, which we
       understand is pending hearing before the Division Bench. The appeal
      'filed by the appellant in this Court is totally misconceived and is
       rejected.
                                                                                   'F
        In the circumsl ances of this case, we make no order as to costs.


     P.B.R.                                                 Appeal dismissed.



r