Punjab-Haryana High Court
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be ... vs Mohinder Singh. The on 9 February, 2010
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaswant Singh
Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2008
Date of Decision: 9.2.2010
Court on its own motion
Versus
Rabinder Singh and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with
Shri Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for the respondent-
contemnors.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The present petition under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been entertained on a reference made by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 20.8.2008 against Dr. Rabinder Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Dr. Tejinder Kaur daughter of Mohinder Singh, in respect of the allegations levelled in a transfer application filed by them before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
The plaintiffs before the trial Court are Birinder Singh and Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2008 [2] Jagbinder Singh sons of Mohinder Singh claiming the estate of Mohinder Singh. The defendants Dr. Rabinder Singh and Dr. Tejinder Kaur, are son and daughter of Mohinder Singh, but from the second wife. A transfer application filed by the defendants (the present respondents) before the learned District & Sessions Judge on 27.3.2008, seeking transfer of the aforesaid suit from the Court of Shri M.S. Dhillon, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna. The primary ground to seek transfer is the close relationship of plaintiff No. 1-Birinder Singh with one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It was asserted in the application that because of pressure of the Judge of this Court, the learned trial Court is granting short dates and that the defendants apprehend that they will not get a fair trial from the Court.
In reply to the said transfer application, the plaintiffs in fact asserted that Dr. Tejinder Kaur defendant No.2, through her husband, is related to another Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court and his son, who was a Judge of this Court and thus, the defendants are well connected with the legal luminaries and are conversant with the impartial functioning of the judicial system.
The learned District Judge declined the transfer application on 26.7.2008, but also made a reference to this Court on 20.8.2008 for initiation of contempt proceedings.
Respondent No.2 Dr. Tejinder Kaur in her short affidavit asserted that she has given a Power of Attorney to her brother Dr. Rabinder Singh to act in her absence as she is working as a medical Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2008 [3] practitioner in the Health Services of the United Kingdom. She has averred that she has not signed the transfer application and that if any contempt of Court has been committed in her name, she tenders her sincere and unconditional apology to the Court.
In reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1-Dr. Rabinder Singh, reference has been made to number of litigation inter-se between the parties and also the fact that Mohinder Singh, predecessor- in-interest of the parties has earlier filed a transfer application before the learned District Judge, seeking transfer for the same reason i.e. influence by the same Hon'ble Judge of this Court (at that time District Judge) in favour of Birinder Singh. The said transfer application was allowed by the learned District Judge on 28.3.2001. It is, thus, sought to be pleaded that since on the similar allegations the case was transferred earlier, therefore, the respondents sought transfer in view of the conduct of the proceedings by the Presiding Officer and in exercise of their legal rights in a good faith and bona-fide manner. Respondent No.1 has also averred that he had no intention to scandalise or lower the authority of the Court or cause any interference in the due course of judicial proceedings and that if any contempt of the Court is committed, he tenders his unconditional apology.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the suit filed by Birinder Singh and Jagbinder Singh has since been decreed on 12.9.2008 by the Court of Shri Dhillon itself and that an appeal against the same at the instance of Crl. O.C.P. No. 20 of 2008 [4] the present respondents, is pending before the District Judge.
We have heard learned counsel for the respondents. We do not appreciate the levelling of allegations by the respondents. It would have been advisable for the respondents to use the restraint in levelling allegations. But keeping in view the totality of circumstances, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents and discharge the Rule.
Reference & petition is thus, dismissed.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE [ JASWANT SINGH ] JUDGE 09-02-2010 ds