1 CONP92.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 2865 OF 1985 Asha M. Gehi and Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Charanjeet Chanderpal @ Chander Kumar Gehi and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.J. Khera for the Petitioners. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER 2010. P.C. :- Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. According to the Petitioners, three persons are required to be proceeded in this Petition viz. Respondent Nos. 7, 14 and 15. 2. I have extensively heard learned Counsel Mr. Khera in support of the Petition at the stage of admission. Respondent No.7 was a party to a Suit being Suit No.2865 of 1985. In the said Suit, Respondent No.7, who was Defendant No.6 in the said Suit undertook as not to contest the Will dated 18th November 1984 purported to have been executed by late M.G. Gehi in respect of which Probate Petition being Testamentary Petition No. 575 of 1985 was filed and then pending in the 2 CONP92.10.sxw Court, which Petition was filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said Suit. He had also undertaken to withdraw the caveat filed by him in the said Testamentary Petition No. 575 of 1985. Learned Counsel Mr. Khera submitted that after the Probate Petition was granted, Respondent No.7 took out Misc. Petition (Lodg.) No. 461 of 2010 and sought revocation of the Probate granted by the Court in the said proceedings. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Khera informed the Court that the said proceeding has been disposed of. Learned Counsel Mr. Khera submitted that Respondent No.7 should be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act as he took out this Misc. Petition despite his undertakings recorded in the Consent Terms as regard Probate Petition No. 575 of 1985. He also submitted that Respondent No.7 has acted as a witness in a Criminal Case filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Khera. I am unable to accept the argument advanced by Mr. Khera as regards the allegations of contempt against Respondent No.7. It is noticed that Respondent No.7 did not oppose the Probate Petition and thereafter, the probate was granted. It appears that subsequent to the grant of probate, Misc. Petition (Lodg.) No.461 of 2010 was filed to seek certain reliefs. In my view, filing of such a proceedings in the Court by itself would not amount to contempt as is sought to be argued by learned Counsel Mr. Khera. Ultimately, Respondent No.7 wanted to seek certain relief from the Court and that by itself will not amount to contempt of the Court. So far as 3 CONP92.10.sxw status of Respondent No.7 as a witness in the Criminal Court where the question of forgery relating to the Will of testator Anil was involved, I am not inclined to accept that by becoming a witness Respondent No.7 has committed contempt. To that extent, no case for issuing action against Respondent No.7 is made. 4. So far as Respondent No.14, the Court is informed that she is practicing as a Forensic Documents Examiner. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, said Respondent No.14 was called upon to give her opinion as to whether the signatures appearing on the Will purported to be that of Anil are genuine or forged. In any case, since Respondent No.14 is a professional keeping herself busy in the Forensic Document Examiner, her giving opinion by itself cannot be considered as something as abuse of process of law. She must have been called upon to give her opinion and she did it as a part of professional work. No case is made out for issuing action against Respondent No.14. 5. Respondent No.15 is an Advocate practicing in Bombay. Allegation of contempt is levelled against him by stating that he had filed the proceedings which were initiated by Respondent No.7. Allegation against Respondent No.15 is that he has instituted Miscellaneous and other proceedings. Surely, Respondent No.15 acted as a professional and that by itself cannot be equated with he having committed Contempt of Court as he must have acted in discharge of his duties and 4 CONP92.10.sxw merely filing certain proceedings on the instructions of a client by itself would not amount to contempt. 6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant the Contempt Petition. The Petition is dismissed against the Petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)