SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE question that squarely falls for consideration in this contempt petition is whether the observation made by the High Court while dismissing the appeal and directing the parties to file a civil suit for adjudication of the dispute could be construed as a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit in a particular manner in violation of which he could be hauled up for contempt of court.
(2.) THE circumstance under which the aforesaid question arises, emerges out of a petition for a contempt filed by the applicant against the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur Shri K. Mohammad Madani on the ground that the respondent-contemner, while deciding the suit for partition between the plaintiff-applicant and the defendant, did not decide it as per the observations made by the learned Judges in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 54/1994. It appears that one Mr. Prakash Chandra Swami, the Predecessor of the applicant, as karta of the joint family, had filed writ petition challenging the order of the Devsthan Commissioner, who had been pleased to hold that the temple in question was a supurdgi temple and not private temple of the family of Prakash Chandra Swami. The writ petition was allowed against which the defendant went up in appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench, while discussing the dispute between the parties, was pleased to make certain observations which were to the benefit of the applicant. However, the appeal was disposed of with the direction that the parties shall get their rights adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter, the plaintiff-applicant filed a civil suit before the court of Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur who dismissed the suit. The plaintiff-applicant filed a first appeal before the learned Single Judge, who was pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside certain findings recorded by the trial Court and finally remanded the matter for its fresh adjudication by the trial Court being the court of Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. One would have inferred that the applicant would reconcile with the order of remand passed by the learned Single Judge who was pleased to remand the matter before the trial Court for afresh adjudication but it appears that the plaintiff-applicant felt offended with the order passed by the trial Court and has, therefore, thought it appropriate to file this contempt petition before the Division Bench urging that when the Division Bench had decided the appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant and had directed the parties to get the in inter-se dispute decided by the trial Court, it had made certain observations which were not complied by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City Jaipur and contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench, the suit was dismissed. According to the counsel for the applicant Ms. Chaturvedi, this amounts to contempt on the part of the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur and, therefore, a proceeding should be initiated against him for contempt. In support of her submission, it was argued that not complying the directions of the High Court even if it was by way of observation, the decision of the trial Court amounts to contempt and, therefore, a proceeding should be initiated against the concerned judicial officer who had dismissed the suit. Having heard the counsel for the applicant at some length, we do not feel persuaded to accept the contention of the counsel for the applicant in the facts and circumstances of this case for when the Division Bench had earlier disposed of the appeal granting liberty to the parties to move the trial court by way of afresh suit to get the inter-se dispute decided, in our view, the observations, which had been made by the Division Bench earlier will only have to be treated as a prima facie view of the Judges on the controversy involved. But, when the suit was decided afresh on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and the arguments were advanced from both the sides, the Judge of the trial Court was surely at liberty to decide it afresh and could not have been expected to decide as if it was influened by the observations of the High Court. However, even if the Judge of the trial Court decided the matter contrary to the observations made by the High Court, he was obviously under a legal duty to assign cogent and legally valid reasons for such view and if that view is erroneous for any reason, the same is definitely appeallable before the appellate forum, which has already been availed by the plaintiff-applicant and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court has also been set aside after which the matter has been remanded for a fresh consideration. But, it will have to be taken note of that merely because an erroneous order or an order which was not passed in favour of the applicant as per the choice and perception of the applicant and the observation made by the Division Bench was not duly take note of, the same cannot amount to a cause giving rise to a contempt proceeding against the judicial officer. For initiating contempt proceeding against a judicial officer, it will have to be shown that a categorical direction given out by the concerned court was not followed by the court in letter and spirit to whom the direction had been issued. In the instant matter, the appeal had been disposed of earlier merely granting liberty to the parties to approach the trial Court to get their inter-se dispute decided in regard to their rights over the temple by filing a fresh civil suit and that obviously had to be decided on the basis of the material on record including evidence which were adduced before the trial Court. It is common experience that day in and day out, observations are made by the concerned court and that, at the most, can have a persuasive effect since the observations obviously will have to be construed as prima facie observations on the controversy involved. The observation, if it is not given out in categorical terms or direction, the same cannot be treated so as to construe that the trial Court has to decide the matter in a particular manner. If this were so, then the liberty granted to the parties to approach the trial Court to get the suit decided afresh, will be meaningless and the entire jurisdiction of the trial Court will amount to have been usurped by the High Court rendering the entire proceeding before the trial Court as non-est or empty ritual. The observation cannot, therefore, be construed in such a manner so as to infer that the trial Court had to decide the suit in a particular manner unless the boundary is delineated by such observation. The observation obviously cannot be treated on such a strong footing so as to wipe out the jurisdiction of the trial Court which had to decide the suit afresh. Besides this, if the parties are aggrieved of the judgment and order of the trial Court, obviously the remedy lies by way of an appeal which in this case has duly been availed by the applicant and if the particular order has been set aside by the appellate forum, that cannot give rise to a consequence of punishing the Judge of the trial court by initiating a contempt proceeding unless it were specifically established that the Judge was guilty of wilful disobedience of the order or direction of the Court.
(3.) THE scope of contempt, in our view, cannot be extended or stretched to a level of teaching a lesson to the subordinate judicial officer by merely inferring that the subordinate judicial officer perhaps has not followed the spirit of the observation made by the High Court as it would be very dicey and cannot be permitted to be used by the litigant as a tool in order to teach a lesson to him specially when the observation is not in the form of categorical direction and is merely a prima facie opinion of the court. In view of the aforesaid discussion and under the existing circumstances of this matter, we are not convinced that the trial Court although might have passed an erroneous order, it should entail the consequence of punishment under the law of contempt. The contempt petition, therefore, stands dismissed. .;