- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. The petiti-oners instituted this civil contempt petition for the alleged willful flouting of order passed by this Court on 23-12-1988 in F. A. F. O No. 452 of 1988.
(2.) THE facts draped in brevity are that by means of judgment dated 28-4-1988, the application for temporary injunction 6c-2 was allowed and defendants were restrained from taking possession of the property forcibly without observing in compliance the due procedure prescribed under the law. THE present applicant moved an application seeking vacation of stay order dated 23-12-1988. Acting on this application, this Court passed following orders: "meanwhile parties are directed to maintain status quo". The case figured in the cause-list on 19-8-2002 on which date a mention was made on behalf of Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners to adjourn the case and to take it up on 21- 8-2002. The case was called out on 21-8-2002 but he was conspicuous by his absence. In the first round, the case was passed over to be taken up the revised list apparently not to appear to be harsh and to afford one more opportunity to learned Counsel for the petitioners. The case was again taken up in the revised list on 23-8-2002 and it was in the second round that the Court proceeded to delve into the record in order to ascertain the sufficiency of facts. From the perusal of the entire record, it transpires that the relief sought in contempt petition is to initiate action against opposite parties for wilful flouting of the order dated 23-12- 1988 passed in F. A. F. O. No. 452 of 1988. I delved into the record of F. A. F. O. No. 452 of 1988 and from its perusal, it transpired that the order dated 23-12-1988 the alleged flouting of which constituted the basis for filing the present contempt petition, had already been vacated by the Court on 29-3-1989 i. e. prior to the institution of the instant contempt petition.
(3.) THE petitioners have approached this Court in the contempt jurisdiction by concealment of correct facts and by this reckoning, it appears to me that an attempt has been made by the petitioners to inveigle the Court into passing an order consistent with their design. I would not forbear from expressing here that bar and bench are the joint guardians of the rule of the law. THE Counsel being responsible officer of the Court is obligated upon to assist the Court for just and proper administration of justice. THE Courts cannot be expected to be cognisant of the correct facts and it is in this perspective that the assistance from the Counsel is expected as a responsible officer of the Court. In the performance of his professional duties a Counsel is expected not to be influenced or swayed by person, motives, desires or resentment. Observation made by Lord Birkenhead, L. C. in Globe Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Trustee of the Port and Harbours of Greenock, may aptly be reproduced below: "a similar matter arose in this House some years ago and it was pointed out by the then Presiding Judge that the withholding from their Lordships of any authority which might throw light upon the matter under debate was really to obtain a decision from their Lordships in the absence of the material and information which a properly informed decision required, it was in effect, to convert this House into a debating assembly upon legal matters, and to obtain a decision founded upon imperfect knowledge. THE extreme impropriety of such a course could not be made too plain. " In Vinay Chandra Mishra's case reported in AIR 1995 SC 2348, the Apex Court most pertinently observed that - "an Advocate should be a gentleman, enjoying the respect of his colleagues and the Court. . . . . . . . . He should present the facts and law correctly, without any over statement suppression or distortion. " In Advocate General Bihar v. Mandi Samiti, M. P. Khair Industries Ltd. reported in AIR 1980 SC 946, it was ruled by the Apex Court that - "deceiving the Court or the Court's officers, by intentionally suppressing facts or placing false material before the Court, would constitute contempt. ";