IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007 Sri Himmat Singh Negi S/o late Sri Hayat Singh Negi R/o Negi Sweets House, Garur Bazar, (Village Paya), Tehsil and District Bageshwar. ………….. Petitioner Versus Sri Puran Singh Bhakuni S/o Sri Kunwar Singh Bhakuni R/o Garur Bazar, Village Silly, Tehsil and District Bageshwar. …………. Respondent Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Sr.Advocate assisted by S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This petition is moved under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying that the respondent Puran Singh Bhakuni be punished under said Act. 3) Brief facts alleged in the petition are that Dhanuli Devi, wife of the petitioner, had filed a Civil Revision No. 91 of 2004, against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2004, passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts / District Judge, Bageshwar, in S.C.C. Suit No. 01 of 2002. Said revision was fixed for hearing on 3rd of April 2007. A counter affidavit was filed in said revision on behalf of Puran Singh Bhakuni (present respondent). In Para 4 of said counter affidavit following averments were made: “That it is significant to point out here that Smt. Dhanuli Devi W/o Sri Himmat Singh purchased Plot No. 675 at measuring 2 Aana land from one Sri V.D. Kothari by means of sale deed dated 14.12.1978. The Plot No. 675 is on the back side having no commercial value while Plot No. 676 is on the road side which has great commercial value. Since, Smt. Dhanuli Devi and her husband had constructed a permanent shop over a portion of Plot No. 676, as such the suit f9or recovery of possession and permanent injunction was filed against her on behalf of Garur Devta. The said suit was registered as Original Suit No. 29 of 1982. Smt Dhanui Devi took a curious stand in her written statement that in the sale deed executed in her favour on 06.12.1978, Plot No. 675 has wrongly been written in place of Plot No. 676. This stand was disbelieved by the learned Trial Court and a finding was recorded that the disputed land (Plot No. 676) belonging to Garur Devta. It was further held that Smt. Dhanuli Devi had purchased Plot No. 675 and therefore they have no right, title or interest over any portion of Plot No. 676 and further that Garur Devta is the sole owner of Plot No. 676. Ultimately, the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 21.04.1984 and the said judgment has become final and binding upon Smt. Dhanuli Devi. In this connection true copy of the judgment dated 21.04.1984, is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. 4) The allegation of the present petitioner is that the respondent had knowingly made a false statement as the judgment and order dated 21.04.1984 had been set aside and remanded back to the trial court. With these allegations, it is stated in the petition that the respondent has committed contempt of court. Hence, the Petition. 5) Since, the petition was received through Advocate General with his letter dated 18.05.2007, referring the petition as criminal contempt, the Registry of this Court has registered this case as Criminal Contempt Petition No. 01 of 2007. 6) Notices were issued to the respondent, who has filed his counter affidavit explaining his position that the respondent was not party to the Suit No. 29 of 1982, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 21.04.1984, by the Civil Judge, Almora, as such, the respondent had no knowledge of the further proceedings, in the matter. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has done nothing which scandalises or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of Court, nor is there an act of interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, nor is it an act of obstructing the administration of justice. 7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in Civil Revision No. 91 of 2004, quoted above, are not correct to the extent of finality of judgment dated 21.04.1984, but the explanation given by the respondent Puran Singh Bhakuni that since he was not party to the suit, as such, he had no knowledge of the continuance of the proceedings after the judgment and order dated 21.041984, passed in Suit No. 29 of 1982, appears to be acceptable and there appears no criminal intention on the part of the respondent. Petitioner himself has filed copy of the judgment dated 21.04.1984, passed in Suit No. 29 of 1982, as Annexure -2 to the contempt petition. Parties to the suit are shown in the judgment itself and Puran Singh Bakhuni is not a party in the suit. As such, we have no hesitation in accepting the explanation offered by the respondent. In Para 12 of the counter affidavit filed to the petition, the respondent has stated that the mistake on the part of the deponent as to the finality of the judgment dated 24 .04.2007 is bona fide mistake and the respondent had no intention of drawing any wrongful advantage. The respondent has tendered unconditional apology, which we accept. 8) Therefore, in the above circumstances, this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the respondent are hereby discharged. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 05.03.2008 05.03.2008 H.Negi