- (1.) Rule was issued by a Division Bench of this Court on April 30, 1981 to Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, contemner, as to why he should not be punished for Contempt of Court in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 324 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules.
(2.) The aforesaid notice was issued to the contemner in these circumstances : In Civil Suit No. 45 of 1980. Dashrath Chand Singhvi v. Chief Accounts Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others , an order was passed by the trial court on February 13, 1981 under which, the case was adjourned to February 27, 1981 on the application of defendant No. 5 for setting aside the ex-parte order passed earlier and on the application of defendant Nos. 5, 9 and 10 to adjourn the case for engaging a lawyer. A revision petition was tiled against the aforesaid order in this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision No. 98 of 1981. A learned Single Judge of this Court (M.C. Jain, J.) under his order dated March 2, 1981, mentioning the grievance of Dashrath Chand Singhvi before him that there was no ground for the adjournment granted by trial court, dismissed the revision petition summarily. It appears that on February 27, 1981, the trial court allowed both the applications : one of defendants Nos. 5, 9 and 10 for engaging a lawyer and the other of defendant No. 5 for setting aside the ex-parte order on payment of Rs. 15/- as costs to the plaintiff, A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order in this Court by Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi and the same was registered as revision petition No. 145 of 1981. In the grounds of the revision (Para 6), he made the following allegations:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... That revision petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice D.P. Gupta, as he then was) dismissed the revision petition making some observations therein. It appears that because of the allegations in para 6 of the revision petition No. 145/81 which allegations have already been extracted above, the Honble Chief Justice after perusal of the aforesaid para of the writ petition, ordered that is being a case of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) should be heard and decided by a Division Bench constituting of two Judges of this Court (S.K. Mal Lodha and (Miss) Kanta Kumari Bhatnagar, JJ.). The aforesaid Bench, on April 30, 1981, ordered issue of a show cause notice to Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, the contemner. The contemner appeared in this Court on September 29, 1981 and raised an objection that the notice has not been issued to him in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 325 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. Therefore, it was ordered that a fresh notice be issued to the contemner under sub-rule (3) of Rule 325 of the aforesaid Rules, incorporating para 6 of the memo of revision which has already been extracted above. On the request of the contemner, two months time was allowed to him. Notice thereafter was issued to the contemner and the service was effected on him. The contemner appeared in the Court and raised various objections to the effect that the case should , not be heard by a Bench of which Justice S.K. Mal Lodha is a member because, the said Judge was an interested party. That Bench, therefore, declined to hear the case and the case came before us.
(3.) On 15.1.1982, Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, the contemner, was present. We heard him. He raised an objection that the service of the notice has not been effected properly and be has not received a copy of the notice. We asked the contemner to explain the allegations made by him against the Munsif and a Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice M.C. Jain) but the contemner refused to say anything on merits and repeated that he should be allowed time to file reply to the notice and a copy of the notice should be given to him.;