- (1.) THIS Court issued notice before admission returnable early in 30/11/1994 in this petition filed by the petitioner Shri Narayan Govind Murugkar, under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971. Vide order dt/- 30/11/1994, leave was granted to the petitioner to add the landlord Shri Rajaram Vithal Joshi as the respondent No. 3 to the petition. In view of the leave granted by this Court, Shri Rajaram Joshi was added as respondent No. 3 on 1/12/1994. The facts giving rise to the present contempt petition are as under : admittedly, the petitioner Shri Narayan Murugkar is the tenant of Shri Rajaram Joshi-the respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 490/87 against the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, regarding the arrears of rent. The petitioner also filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 290/91 against the judgment and decree passed by the Small causes Court, Nagpur, regarding eviction. In Reg. Civil Appeal No. 490/87, an application was filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence including the documentary evidence at the appellate stage. The learned lower Court rejected the application. Consequently, Civil Revision Application No. 522/92 was preferred before this Court. This Court, in the Civil Revision Application, passed the following order on 24-6-1992. "heard Mr. Kamlakar Advocate for the applicant. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application for permission to lead evidence U/s. 107 (i) (d) of the C. P. C. at the appellate stage the present revision has been filed by the applicant/defendant. The grudge was about refusing to lead evidence in appeal. The defendant wanted to examine the Assessor of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation for proving the two documents viz. declaration given by the applicant/tenant to the Corporation and the communication issued by the tax Assessment Authority to him. The non-application has filed the pursis and he has no objection for exhibiting these two documents and for reading the same in evidence. In the wake of this pursis, Mr. Kamlakar, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this revision application which is granted. The appellate Court is directed to exhibit these two documents referred to in the pursis and to read the same in evidence and decide the appeal after taking into consideration these two documents. In the facts and circumstances the Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal itself as early as possible. "
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in spite of the specific direction on the mandate of this Court, the learned lower appellate Court has not exhibited the two documents referred in the pursis. Consequently, the petitioner filed pursis on 20-6-1993, 23-9-1993 and 14-9-1994 and also applications on 2-4-1994, 23-6-1994 and 2-8-1994. In spite of various pursis and applications, the learned lower appellate Court has not exhibited the two documents as directed by this Court and thereby flouted the order of this Court showing utter disregard for this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition.
(3.) REG. Civil Appeal Nos. 490/87 and 290/91 were consolidated vide order dt. 30-8-1994 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur, in Misc. Civil Application No. 263/93.;