IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.9718 OF 2008 IN AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.884 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3246 of 2009)

Lucknow Golf Club, Lucknow     ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Prashant Chandra and Ors.     ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Though the case was placed under the heading ‘Incomplete After Notice  

Matters’, but both the parties stated that the matter be taken up and finally disposed  of.

Permission to file special leave petition is granted. Leave granted.

By the impugned order passed on 19th May, 2008, the High Court issued  rule against Shri Amarjeet Verma, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, to show  

cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against  him for violation of  order dated 21st February, 2008 passed in First Appeal No.77 of 2007.

A  perusal  of  the  record  shows  that  the  first  appeal  preferred  by  the  respondent against judgment and decree dated 17th July, 2007 passed by Civil Judge  

(Senior  Division),  Lucknow  was  allowed  by  the  High  Court  and  the  case  was  remanded to the trial Court with the direction to expedite the hearing of the case and  

to conclude the same preferably within 3 months from the date of filing of certified  copy.   

....2/-

- 2 -

It is not in dispute that certified copy of the judgment of the High Court  was produced before the trial Court on 23rd February, 2008 and on 14th March, 2008,  

notice was ordered to be issued to the defendant for 18th March, 2008.  On the next  date, the case was adjourned to 29th March, 2008 because of the lawyers’ boycott of  

the courts.  The case was then adjourned for 2nd April, 2008 on which date no one  appeared for the parties.  In the meanwhile, respondent filed an application under  

Section 24 of  the  CPC for  transfer  of  case from the court  of  Civil  Judge (Senior  Division), Lucknow.  That petition was dismissed by District Judge, Lucknow on 10th  

April,  2008.  Due to pendency of the transfer application, no effective proceedings  could be conducted in the suit.  After dismissal of the transfer application, the case  

was taken up on 17th April, 2008, on which date it had to be adjourned to 19th April,  2008 because counsel for the respondent No.1 herein stated that he would conduct the  

case after coming from the High Court.  On 19th April, 2008, the trial Court passed a  detailed order and adjourned the case to 29th April, 2008 by recording that in view of  

the High Court’s order, issues will have to be framed. On 29th April, 2008, neither  party  appeared  till  1.10  p.m.  and  after  lunch,  counsel  for  the  defendant  did  not  

appear  necessitating  further  adjournment.   On  30th April,  2008,  the  case  was  adjourned in the wake of resolution passed by the Bar Association.  On the same day,  

the respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which  was dismissed by the High Court on 2nd May, 2008 as not pressed.   On  5th May, 2008,  

the  respondent  filed transfer ....3/-

- 3 -

petition before the High Court.  He also filed First Appeal No.502 of 2008 against  order  dated  19th April,  2008.   On  17th May,  2008,  the  respondent  filed  second  

contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act with the prayer  that  the  respondent  be  punished  for  his  failure  to  comply  with  order  dated  21st  

February, 2008.   Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we  

are  convinced  that  no  case  for  contempt  was  at  all  made  out  and  the  direction  contained in the impugned order was not at all called for.  The manner, in which  

parties conducted the case before the Court, left respondent No.2 with no choice but  to adjourn the case on more than one occasion.  This being the position, the High  

Court was not justified in issuing notice to the respondent to show cause against the  proposed initiation of  the proceedings on the ground of  alleged violation of  order  

dated 21st February, 2008 passed in First Appeal No.77 of 2007. Accordingly,  the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the  

contempt petition filed by the respondent No.1 is dismissed.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, May 01, 2009.