[2009] 6 S.C.R. 260

SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR.

SAGI SUBBA RAJU AND ORS. ETC. (Special Lec; ive Petition (C) Nos. 20374-76 of 2004)

MAY 6, 2009

[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO ASOK KUMAR

GANGULY, JJ.]

Contempt of court - Application for transposing c applicants as petitioners in SLP - Swearing in, of false affidavit to the effect that her mother-in-law expired, as such she be transposed as petitioner-. Notice to applicant - Held: Person named by applicant as dead is alive - Filing of the application and the affidavit re-affirming the position was not

D bonafide - Also, applicants did not clarify the position though opportunity was given to them - Thus, applicants guilty of contempt of this Court - Exemplary costs of Rs. 25,0001imposed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) Nos.

E 20374-20376 of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2003 of the High ..

Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 323 of 1992 and Appeals Nos. 2959 and 2960

F 2001.

M. N. Rao. A. D.N. Rao, A. Ramesh and A Subba Rao, for the Petitioners.

Abhijit Sengupta, K. L. Sastry, Amit Kumar Srivastava and

G R.V. Kameshwaran for the Respondents.

The following order of the Court was delivered:

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. When the matter was taken up on 3.2.2009, the Court passed the following order.

H 260

SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. v. 261 ., Ill"'' ...

SAGI SUBBA RAJU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

"When the matter was taken up, Mr. M.N. Rao, A learned senior counsel brought to the notice that I.A.Nos. 9 to 11/2008 had been filed for transposing the applicants as petitioners. It is also prayed that they may be transposed as petitioner Nos. 2 <md 3 from proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in speqial !eave petition ag<1inst the order in ~PA B No. No. 323191. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 from respondent '1 Nos. 1 and in speo!!'ll !e11vei petition aainst the order in Appeal too. 2959/2001 and Appeal No. 2960/2001.

This application is filed on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, a c statement was made on 25.8.2008 by !earned counsel for respondent 1 that the petitioner had died. Learned counsel wanted to obtain further instructions in the matter.

Thereafter it appears that a copy of affida'li!_ has been .... . . ser\ted on learned counsel for the petitioners as well, some of the respondents that Sunkara Lakshminarasamma had D died about 1 and 1/2 years earlier. The affidavit is dated 26.12.2008. A copy has been filed for our record by learned counsel for the petitioner. An affidavit has been filed by Sunkara lakshmf narasamma which has been filed on 30th January, 2009 stating that the affidavit filed by E Sunkara Kamala is wrong and she is alive and a false , affidavit has been flied. ·-1

In view of the aforesaid position, let notice be issued to Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall F not been taken against her for swearing a false affidavit for the purpose of this case as is evident from the fact that copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for the parties. Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks. '. ~.

Personal presence is dispensed with for the present.

G The matter shall be listed on 24th February, 200¥.

2. In view of the statement made, notice was issued to Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall not be taken against her for swearing a false affidavit for the purpose H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2009) 8 S.C.R.

A of this case as is evident from the fact that the copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for the parties. Reply was to be filed within two weeks. At that stage personal appearance was dispensed with.

3. When the matter was listed on 4.3.2009, in spite of the directions of this Court, the respondent did not file any reply.

This is apparently a clear case of contempt as false affidavit has been filed. On 8.9.2008 it was brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that after verification from his clients he has ascertained that C Mrs. Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Thawala Divya Sarojini

Kasidevi are alive.

4. The affidavit which has been filed on 26.12.2008 states as follows:

"I, Smt. Sunkara Kalama @ Dorasani W/o late S.

Veeraswamy Rio Bhimavaram, Distt. East Godhavari do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

I am the daughter-in-law of Sunkara Lakshminarasamma. I am well conversant with the facts, records and circumstances of the case.

Hence I am competent to swear in this affidavit.

I say that my mother-in-law had died one year and F six month ago. I have filed an application for transposing as a petitioner in the above special leave petition and state that the averments facts made therein are true to my knowledge and information derived from the record of the case.

I say that the averments of facts stated herein above are true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at Bhimavaram on this 26th day of

...

' \.

SUN KARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. v. 263

SAGI SUBBA RAJU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

December, 2008" A

5. After the statements made by learned counsel for the petitioners that those whom the contemnor has named as dead are alive there is no denial of the statements. Opportunity was granted to the concerned respondents to clarify the position but 8 that has not been done.

6. The application was made for transposition as petitioners in the special leave petitions. In view of the apparent false statement stated in the affidavit, it is clear that the application filed and the affidavit thereafter re-affirming the C position were not done bona fide. That being so, the applicants on the face of it are guilty of contempt of this Court. Exemplarf costs of Rs.25,000/- is imposed. The amount shall be deposited in this Court within a period of two months. If the amount is not paid the contemnor shall suffer simple imprisonment for three D months.

7. Ordered accordingly.

N.J.

Applicants held guilty of contempt.