IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1120 of 2007 BETWEEN: P. Bhaskara Rao. ... PETITIONER AND M. Ratnakar and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: MR. E. MANOHAR, SENIOR COUNSEL For MRS. SANGEETA BHASKAR The Court made the following: ORDER: Plaintiff in O.S.No.354 of 2006 is the petitioner. The said suit was filed against the respondents for recovery of damages quantified at Rs.20 lakhs on the ground that the respondents had made defamatory statements against the petitioner herein deliberately resulting in damage to his reputation. 2. It appears that there was another similar suit filed by the petitioner being O.S.No.325 of 2006 and both these suits are pending before the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. 3. The proceedings in O.S.No.354 of 2006, out of which this contempt case arises, show that the defendants 1 to 3 were called absent; defendants 2 and 3 were set ex parte and fresh summons was ordered on the first defendant on 30.11.2006. Then, on 22.12.2006, service on the first defendant was found sufficient and he was called absent. Defendants 2 and 3 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being I.A.No.3913 of 2007 to set aside the ex parte order, which was allowed conditionally. On 17.01.2007 the said IA was closed for non-compliance of conditions and the evidence on behalf of P.W.1 was recorded. On 13.03.2007, the Court recorded as follows, which is relevant for this contempt case: ‘It is submitted that in CRP High Court granted time to file written statement. Await copy of the orders’. On 12.04.2007, 22.06.2007 as well as 18.07.2007, the trial Court has recorded that the orders of the High Court are not filed. On 06.08.2007 it again recorded as under: ‘No order of the High Court is filed. It is reported by Sri G. Arun, learned counsel for the plaintiff, that so far no CRP is filed by the defendant and there is no enhanced time allowed by the High Court. The defendant’s counsel stated that as per his information CRP is not registered so far. Therefore, posted for judgment on 14.08.2007’. 4. It appears that CRP.No.3519 of 2007 was field by the respondents thereafter and interim order dated 10.08.2007 staying further proceedings in the suit was granted by this Court and copy thereof was produced before the trial Court on 14.08.2007. Thereafter, it appears that the said stay, initially granted, was vacated on 14.09.2007, which was brought to the notice of the trial Court on 23.11.2007 and thereafter, CRP.No.3519 of 2007 was itself dismissed on 28.12.2007. 5. The present contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents made deliberate false statements before the trial Court, as if the High Court had extended time for filing written statement while, in fact, no CRP was filed by the respondents by the date of said representation and on the basis of such deliberate and false representation, the trial Court was mislead from 13.03.2007 to 23.11.2007 into adjourning the suit. It is also alleged that even in the affidavit filed in support of the CRP seeking extension of time for filing written statement deliberate false statement were made and it is alleged that the respondents have deliberately resorted to such tactics by misrepresenting the facts before this Court as well as the trial Court to gain advantage of adjournment and as such, the said conduct clearly amounts to committing contempt of Court subordinate to this Court warranting this contempt case to be entertained and the respondents to be punished under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). In support of the affidavit of the petitioner, the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in CRP.No.3519 of 2007 is relied upon to show various false statements made by the respondents herein in the said CRP before this Court as well. 6. The respondents had taken notice and filed a counter contending that the suit O.S.No.325 of 2006 and the present suit O.S.No.354 of 2006 between the same parties, pending before the same Court, were being called on various dates of hearing together. It is stated that similar order setting the respondents ex parte passed in O.S.No.325 of 2006 was conditionally set aside by the trial Court in I.A.No.3914 of 2006 (in O.S.No.354 of 2006 similar order was passed in I.A.No.3913 of 2006, referred to above). The said conditional order to the extent of payment of costs was complied but the written statement could not be filed whereupon I.A.No.3914 of 2006 came to be similarly dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents filed another application being I.A.No.4641 of 2006 seeking extension of time for filing the written statement, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.12.2006 and questioning the same, the respondents preferred CRP.No.553 of 2007 before this Court and the same was allowed by order dated 15.02.2007 granting one week’s time to the respondents herein for filing written statement. Similarly, as mentioned above, in the present suit O.S.No.354 of 2006 also similar application being I.A.No.4642 of 2006 was filed and on its dismissal, CRP.No.3519 of 2007 was filed, which, as stated above, was dismissed by this Court on 28.12.2007. 7. The counter, further, states that since both the suits were being called together, the representation made by the junior counsel for the respondents with respect to the time granted by this Court in CRP.No.553 of 2007 was recorded in both the suits. The counter affidavit, therefore, states that the aforesaid confusion in the representation on behalf of the respondents occurred on account of the different proceedings in different CRP’s before this Court and by mistake the representation, which was relating to CRP.No.553 of 2007 relating to the suit O.S.No.325 of 2006 came to be recorded similarly in O.S.No.354 of 2006 also, though CRP.No.3519 of 2007 arising in the later suit was dismissed. The counter affidavit also state that there is no deliberate misrepresentation of any fact and only on account of the aforesaid confusion, the said representation came to be recorded on behalf of the respondents. It is also specifically alleged that there was work pressure and a close relative of the counsel for the respondents was critically ill, which resulted in the aforesaid mistake in representing before the trial Court, which is neither deliberate nor on account of any malafides. It is also stated that such inadvertent mistake made by the junior counsel of the respondents could not have been deliberately made, as respondents had nothing to gain by such representation. After making other averments, an unconditional and sincere apology is sought for the inadvertent mistake requesting the Court to accept the said apology along with an undertaking on behalf of the respondents that they are ready to cooperate with the trial Court for disposal of the suit on day-to-day basis and assure this Court that such mistakes will not recur. 8. Heard Mr. Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. The affidavit and contentions on behalf of the petitioner, referred to above, clearly point out the casual manner, in which representations were made before the trial Court, which resulted in unnecessary adjournments of the suit O.S.No.354 of 2006 on more than one occasion. It is also true, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the submissions made on behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavits were self- contradictory, which again show that averments as suitable to that point of time were made by the respondents without any sense of responsibility and on the basis of such representations, the trial Court was mislead into adjourning the suits on several occasions. 10. It is also equally true, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the respondents themselves cannot be held liable for such representations by their junior counsel, particularly, in view of the fact that the said junior counsel may have confused himself with the proceedings in the connected suit O.S.No.325 of 2006. Learned senior counsel also submits that even if, prima facie, there is any blameworthy conduct on behalf of the respondents, their categorical and unconditional apology, as mentioned in the counter affidavit, may be taken into consideration and a lenient view deserves to be taken in a matter of this nature when two connected suits are called for hearing together leading to some confusion in reporting the progress in the CRP’s arising out of respective suits. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the nature of contempt alleged by the petitioner is in the nature of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) (iii) of the Act whereunder doing of any act, which interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs the administration of justice, in any manner, amounts to criminal contempt and under Section 15 of the Act, cognizance of such contempt can be taken under sub-clause (2) on a motion made by Advocate General or by the subordinate Court itself. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that keeping in view the above provisions read with Section 10 of the Act, the very petition for contempt is legally not maintainable. 11. It is, however, not necessary to go into a detailed scrutiny including adjudication of the aspect of maintainability in view of the fact that the respondents have tendered unconditional apology and have owned the mistake committed by their junior counsel appearing for them. The contradictory statements in the affidavits of the respondents in different proceedings, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may not, prima facie, fall in the inadvertent mistake attributed by the respondents to the representation of their junior counsel before the Court. However, keeping in view, the unconditional apology and an undertaking given by the respondents that they would cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the suit even on day- to-day basis, I am of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in this contempt case. Since the aspect as to the opportunity to the respondents to file written statement in both the suits, referred to above, has now attained finality by orders of this court in CRP.No.553 of 2007 dated 15.02.2007 and CRP.No.3519 of 2007 dated 28.12.2007 respectively, it would be just and appropriate to direct the trial Court to proceed with the hearing and disposal of the suits as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the undertaking given by the respondents before this Court that they would cooperate with trial Court for disposal of the suits even on day-to-day basis. The trial Court shall, therefore, dispose of the suits O.S.Nos.324 and 354 of 2006 expeditiously and in any case, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the contempt case is closed. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 11, 2011 DSK