Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

To resume the narrative, regarding the proceedings, connect- ed with the suit, the application for vacating the injunction, filed by Badri Singh, came up for final hearing, before the City Munsif, on April 25, 1964, when the second appellant, filed an affidavit, mentioning the fact that the second respondent, herein, who was the plaintiff in the suit, had been expelled, from the Congress Organisation. In view of the fact that the very foundation, for initiating action, vanished, the City Munsif dismissed the injunction application, on April 27, 1964, on the ground that the second respondent was no longer a member of the Congress Organisation. The second respondent moved an application, before the City Munsif, on May 9, 1964, for taking proceedings in contempt, against the appellant and Sri Ajit Prasad Jain, but that application was dismissed on May 30, 1964, on the ground that the present appellants were not parties to the suit. The second respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Contempt Application No. 76 of 1964, in the High Court. After setting out the circumstances, under which he filed the suit, and the order of expulsion, passed against him, the second respondent alleged that the act of the appellants, along with Sri Ajit Prasad -Jain, had directly interfered with the normal course of justice, by hampering the progress of the suit.

Mr. R. K. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the second respondent was a member of the Congress Organisation, and he was bound by the Resolutions, passed by the same. The appellants had only acted, in accordance with the directions, given by the appropriate officers of the Congress organisation, and they were bound to obey the instructions, given to them. When, in the course of the discharge of their duties, they had been directed to enforce the resolution, of the Congress dated December 415, 1950, they issued the Circulars, expelling the second respondent, from the Congress. Their object, in expelling the second respondent, was not in any manner intended to interfere with the proceedings, pending in the suit. The fact that the injunction application was dismissed, because it became infructuous, by the second respondent having ceased to be a member of the Congress Organisation, was certainly not a circumstance which could be put against the appellants, in the matter of issuing the circular, concerned.

There has been no appearance, on behalf of the respondents. After giving due consideration, to the contentious, urged by the learned counsel, for the appellants, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly found the appellants guilty of contempt of Court.

The original first appellant, Sri Govind Sahai, and the second appellant, had each sent letters to the District Returning Officer, expelling the second respondent, and removing his name, from the membership of the Congress. There is no dispute, about this fact. It is also not disputed that the second appellant filed an affidavit, in Suit No. 132 of 1964, drawing the attention of the Court, to the order of expulsion, from membership, passed as against the second respondent, and it is substantially in view of this that the application, for temporary injunction, was dismissed. We are of opinion', that these acts are of each a nature, as to interfere with, or prejudice the second respondent in the proceedings, connected with this suit. Oswald, in his book 'Contempt of Court', Third Edition, says, at p. 6;