REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 20374-76/2004

Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Anr. …Petitioners

Versus

Sagi Subba Raju and Ors. etc.     …Respondents

O R D E R

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. When  the  matter  was  taken  up  on  3.2.2009,  the  Court  passed  the  

following order

“When the matter was taken up, Mr. M.N. Rao, learned  senior counsel brought to the notice that I.A.Nos. 9 to 11/2008  had been filed for transposing the applicants as petitioners. It is  also prayed that they may be transposed as petitioner Nos. 2  and 3 from proforma respondent Nos. 2  and 5 in special leave  petition against  the order  in LPA No. No. 323/91.  Petitioner  Nos. 3 and 4 from respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in special leave  petition against the order in Appeal too. 2959/2001 and Appeal  No. 2960/2001.

This  application  is  filed  on  8.5.2008.  Thereafter,  a  statement  was  made  on  25.8.2008  by  learned  counsel  for

respondent  1  that  the  petitioner  had  died.  Learned  counsel  wanted to obtain further instructions in the matter. Thereafter it  appears  that  a  copy  of  affidavit  has  been  served  on learned  counsel for the petitioners as well, some of the respondents that  Sunkara  Lakshminarasamma had died  about  1  and 1/2  years  earlier. The affidavit is dated 26.12.2008. A copy has been filed  for our record by learned counsel for the petitioner. An affidavit  has been filed by Sunkara lakshminarasamma which has been  filed on 30th January,  2009 stating that the affidavit  filed  by  Sunkara Kamala is wrong and she is alive and a false affidavit  has been filed.

In  view of  the  aforesaid  position,  let  notice  be  issued  to  Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall not been  taken against her for swearing a false affidavit for the purpose  of this case as is evident from the fact that copies thereof have  been served on learned counsel for the parties. Reply, if any,  shall be filed within two weeks. Personal presence is dispensed  with for the present.

The matter shall be listed on 24th  February, 2009.”  

2. In view of the statement made,  notice was issued to Sunkara Kalama  

to show cause as to why action shall not be taken against her for swearing a  

false affidavit for the purpose of this case as is evident from the fact that the  

copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for the parties.  Reply  

was to be filed within two weeks.  At that stage personal appearance  was  

dispensed with.  

2

3. When the matter was listed on 4.3.2009, in spite of the directions of  

this Court,  the respondent did not file any reply.  This is apparently a clear  

case  of  contempt  as  false  affidavit  has  been  filed.  On  8.9.2008  it  was  

brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for  

the petitioners that after verification from his clients  he has ascertained that  

Mrs. Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Thavvala Divya Sarojini Kasidevi are  

alive.   

4. The affidavit which has been filed on 26.12.2008 states as follows:

“I,  Smt.  Sunkara  Kalama  @  Dorasani  W/o  late  S.  Veeraswamy  R/o   Bhimavaram,  Distt.  East  Godhavari  do  hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the daughter-in-law of Sunkara Lakshminarasamma.  I  am  well  conversant  with  the  facts,  records  and  circumstances  of  the  case.  Hence  I  am  competent  to  swear in this affidavit.

2. I say that my mother-in-law had died one year and six  month ago. I have filed an application for transposing as  a petitioner in the above special leave petition and state  that  the  averments  facts  made  therein  are  true  to  my  knowledge and information derived from the record of  the case.

3. I say that the averments  of facts stated herein above are  true  to  my  knowledge  and  no  part  of  it  is  false  and  nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

3

Verified at Bhimavaram on this 26th day of December,  2008”

5. After the statements made by learned counsel for the petitioners that  

those whom the contemnor has named as dead are alive there is no denial of  

the  statements.  Opportunity  was  granted  to  the  concerned respondents  to  

clarify the position but that has not been done.  

6. The  application  was  made  for  transposition  as  petitioners  in  the  

special leave petitions.  In view of the apparent false statement stated in the  

affidavit, it is clear that the application filed and the affidavit thereafter re-

affirming the position were not done bona fide. That being so, the applicants  

on the face of it are guilty of contempt of this Court. Exemplary costs of  

Rs.25,000/- is imposed.  The amount shall be deposited in this Court within  

a period of two months. If the amount is not paid the contemnor shall suffer  

simple imprisonment for three months.  

7. Ordered accordingly.

………..................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)  

………...................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, May 06, 2009

4