PRASANTA KUMAR SUR Vs. AMULYA KUMAR SUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON June 15, 1949, Lahiri, J. (as he then was) and my learned brother issued a Rule at the instance of Prasanta Kumar Sur (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) calling upon the opposite party Amulya Kumar Sur why he should not be committed for contempt or otherwise dealt with under the Contempt of Courts act, 32 of 1952, for having violated an order dated May 19, 1959 in Second Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 1959, where the petitioner is the appellant and the said opposite party one of the respondents.

(2.) THIS order, on the alleged breach of which the instant contempt Rule is rested, is an order appointing the petitioner as the receiver of the fishery in controversy, known as Ghosaler Abad Jalkar. It bears inter alia:

(3.) MR. Mukherji, the learned advocate for the opposite party, raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has since died, resulting in abatement of the proceedings. Mr. Ghose, the learned advocate for the petitioner, refers to the Privy Council decision in (l) H. H. Brij Indar Singh v. Lala Kashi Ram and others, 26 C. L. J. 572, and contends that the substitution made in the main appeal aborts abatement. Neither of the contentions can receive effect. That proceedings for contempt as alleged, pertaining though to what is called civil contempt, are quasi-criminal all the same is now well held. A considerable body of decisions cluster round the subject. But reference may be made only to Nripendra Narayan Choudhury v. Beda Bala Debt, (2) 55 C. W. N. 479, where Harries, C. J. (Das, J. , agreeing) observes at page 483: :