IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. O.C.P. No. 9 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 20.01.2011 Court on its own motion .... PETITIONER Versus Manraj Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: None. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In this case, the contempt proceedings were initiated by this Court suo moto, on a reference made by the learned Administrative Judge of District Amritsar, on receipt of photostat copy of a judgment dated 30.7.2009, passed by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, in Civil Suit No. 392 of 1999, titled as Manraj Singh versus Pb. Sind Rishikesh Haridwar, District Saharanpur through its Mahant/Sant Amarjit Singh and others, with two words “Justice Sold” written on it, as a reading of the judgment created doubt in the mind of the learned Administrative Judge about the truthfulness of the judgment being delivered in bona fide discharge of duties. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial court decreed the suit ex-parte, as the defendants never came forward to defend the suit. The learned Administrative Judge, after going through the said Crl. O.C.P. No. 9 of 2010 -2- judgment, formed the opinion that the trial court has decreed the suit without caring to examine the factum of the previous suit, which find mention in the Will and also in the order on record. In respect of the parties to the suit, it was found to be an attempt by the plaintiffs to abuse the process of law to seek declaration. The learned Administrative Judge, on certain facts mentioned in the reference order, observed that the plaintiffs (respondents-contemners herein) have abused the process of the court with a view to scandalize and lower the dignity of the Court, disclosing a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the reference was made for initiation of criminal proceedings. Consequently, vide order dated 8.4.2010, notices were issued to the respondents-contemners, but in spite of several efforts made by the police, notices could not be served. As per the report of the police, even the non-bailable warrants could not be executed and none of the respondents is traceable, as they are not residing at the given address. On December 06, 2010, we had asked the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, to send a report with regard to the pendency of appeal against the aforesaid judgment dated 30.7.2009. Accordingly, the District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar, has reported that against the said judgment, no appeal has been filed. The aforesaid civil suit was filed on 25.9.2004 and the ex-parte judgment was passed on 30.7.2009, i.e. after about five years of institution of the suit and the defendants remained ex-parte throughout the pendency of the suit. It appears to us that the defendants have chosen not to Crl. O.C.P. No. 9 of 2010 -3- challenge the said ex-parte decree. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that whatsoever evidence was placed before the Civil Judge, the same was perused and the ex-parte decree was passed. Consequently, we feel that the contempt proceedings, initiated against the respondents-contemners, need not to be kept pending and the same are, hereby, dropped. However, it is made clear that it will always be open for the defendants in the aforesaid civil suit to get the ex-parte decree set aside, in accordance with law. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 20, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE