1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.30 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (L) NO.640 OF 2008 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO.82 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1562 OF 2008 Mrs.Savitri Sippy ..Petitioner Versus Mr.Shashikant Ghorpade, The District Deputy Registrar, C.S. Bombay City 1 & Others ..Respondents. Ms.Veena Sippy, Constituted Attorney of petitioner in person. Mr.R.S. Ghadge with Mr.A.S. Desai for respondent Nos.3 to 8 and 10 to 12. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 19th January, 2010. P.C. : 1. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 25th September 2008 dismissed a Contempt Petition instituted by the review petitioner. The learned Single Judge held that no contempt has been committed by the first, second and third respondents and that consequently no action under the provisions of the 2 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and/or Article 215 of the Constitution was warranted. An appeal was filed against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 17th March 2009 held that an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to exercise the jurisdiction to punish for contempt was not maintainable since the judgment of the learned Single Judge was not an order or decision within the ambit and scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The judgment of the Division Bench is sought to be reviewed. Thirty six grounds have been urged at the hearing. 2. Having heard the constituted attorney of the petitioner in person, we are of the view that no valid reason for the exercise of the jurisdiction in review has been made out. The grounds in the review petition and the oral submissions are prolix and argumentative. But, what is of grave concern is that the language used in the grounds in the review petition and in the written submissions in support, scandalize the Court. For instance in the written submissions in support of the review petition, the petitioner has made the following statements about the judgment and/or the Judges : “Points 25 & 26 :- ....... How absurd, ridiculous and against logic. Comprehension and understanding is the first step and finding and detection is the second step. It is impossible to reach the second step without bypassing the first step as finding is based on comprehension. Therefore, the Single Judge who cannot comprehend, has not found, he cannot find, in fact he can never find. It is a sheer lie and this Division Bench has raised no objection to the same ........ Point No.31 :- ....... This again reveals the lack of legal knowledge by the Single Judge ............... Point No.33 :- ....... This well reveals that the single Judge is a fabricator and does not even know the Maharashtra Co- 3 operative Societies Act, 1960 for appointment of Administrator is the jurisdiction of the Register and not the Co-operative Court. And since this Division Bench has raised no objection to the same, it means that they are themselves concurring with the single Judge. Therefore, this is the Thirty-third error in their Judgment.” (emphasis supplied) 3. On a considered view of the matter, we have refrained from taking recourse to the contempt jurisdiction against the petitioner and/or her constituted attorney, who has appeared in person in these proceedings. The constituted attorney has during the course of her submissions advanced the argument that there are thirty six errors in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17th March 2009. Having carefully considered the submissions and the grounds, we do not consider that a fit and proper case has been made out for the exercise of the jurisdiction in review. None of the points to which a reference has been made can reasonably be construed to bring the case within the parameters of the exercise of the review jurisdiction. 4. In para 3 of the judgment, according to the petitioner, there is an error in recording the submissions which were urged before the Court. The first sentence of para 3 reads as follows : 3. According to the Petitioner in the Contempt Petition, it was claimed that the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.3 has not given effect to the said order of the Court and thus have violated the directions of the Court rendering them liable under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.] The petitioner has stated that it was her contention that all the respondents are guilty of contempt and that the words “particularly Respondent No. 4 3” would seem to convey a meaning which was not intended. The words “particularly Respondent No.3” shall stand deleted from the aforesaid sentence and the sentence shall be corrected accordingly. 5. In para 3 of the Judgment, where the observations of the learned Single Judge have been extracted, there is a typographical error in the last sentence of para 7. The words “who is appeared in person” shall stand corrected as “who is appearing in person”. The aforesaid typographical error shall stand corrected. 6. We do not find any reason to exercise the jurisdiction in review. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)