9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the period stipulated in the order. The High Court further directed that on deposit being made, the respondent who is the original plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw 50% of the amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court and 50% without security. 3.The order dated 21st December, 1999 is the subject matter of challenge in the Special Leave Petition. While issuing notice in the petition on 27th March, 2000, this Court directed that the notice shall state that the matter may be disposed of at the SLP stage by varying the order under challenge so that withdrawal of the entire amount is permitted only against security and withdrawal of 50% amount without security was stayed. The order reads : "Issue notice. Notice shall state that the matter may be disposed of at the S.L.P. stage by varying the order under challenge so that withdrawal of the entire amount is permitted only against security. Pending further orders, the order under challenge is stayed to the extent that it permits the respondent to withdraw fifty per cent of the amount without furnishing security." 4.Pursuant to the decree, a sum of Rs. 19,51,268/- was deposited in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3942/2000, dated 2nd May, 2000 was filed by the petitioners in the first appeal pending in the High Court bringing to the notice of the High Court the aforesaid facts and submitting that the trial court has shown scant respect to the order of this Court and in clear violation thereof has permitted the withdrawal of 50% of the amount deposited by them without furnishing security. The petitioner, therefore, prayed in the said application for quashing and setting aside the order dated 7th April, 2000 and further prayed that the plaintiff be directed to deposit the amount so withdrawn forthwith in the trial court. In affidavit dated 7th June, 2000 filed in reply to the said application, the stand taken was that 50% of the amount without furnishing security had been withdrawn in terms of the order of the trial court dated 7th April, 2000 and if the said order is erroneous or illegal, the applicants are entitled to challenge the same by revision or appeal but in the said application the court will not go into the legality or validity of the order passed by the trial Judge. It was further submitted that the plaintiff was ready and willing to furnish security for the withdrawal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of this Court but also the order of the High Court dated 14th June, 2000. The respondent shall now redeposit the 50% of the amount forthwith in the trial court. Issue notice on the contempt petition that has been filed by the petitioners in regard to the earlier order of the trial court and suo motu notice in regard to what appears to be a breach of the High Court's order dated 14th June, 2000 and this Court's order dated 27th March, 2000. The notice in the suo motu petition shall issue not only to the respondent but also to the Civil Judge (SD), Anand. The S.L.P. is adjourned to 9th October, 2000. The contempt petitions shall be returnable on that day." 10.Despite not only the knowledge but also having a copy of the order dated 27th March, 2000, the Civil Judge permitted the withdrawal of the 50% amount to the plaintiff without furnishing security. It seems that the amount was immediately withdrawn. 11.In the contempt petition and also in the special leave petition, affidavit has been filed by Navinbhai Somabhai Patel being son and power of attorney holder of the original plaintiff-respondent herein. The judicial officer has also filed an affidavit in reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. He further states that when the Civil Application No. 3492 came up for hearing before the High Court on 24th July, 2000, his advocate was not present and it could not be pointed out that a solvency certificate has already been filed and accepted by the trial court and that the order of the High Court directing the respondent to furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court had been duly complied with. The deponent is said to have received the certified copy of the order dated 24th July, 2000 only on 26th August, 2000 which was Saturday and the amount was redeposited on 28th august, 2000. Under these circumstances, Navinbhai submits that respondent never intended to act in wilful disobedience of the order. 14.There can be no manner of doubt from the circumstances of the case that in clear breach of the order of this Court, the amount was withdrawn without security. It is also apparent that in breach of the order of the High Court dated 14th June, 2000 instead of furnishing security, a solvency certificate was filed by the respondent before the trial court. It also appears that in reply to the civil application, the respondent instead of taking a forthright sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 7th April, 2000, he inadvertently erred in reading and understanding the order dated 27th March, 2000 and that there has been a serious lapse on his part in this regard. What we have said earlier while dealing with the stand of the respondent that the facts are incapable of being controverted and in clear breach of the order of this Court, a sum of Rs. 9,78,634/- was permitted to be withdrawn without security, is applicable with more force against the judicial officer. It is a matter of great concern, regret and deep anguish that the order of the type in question which clearly and unambiguously grants a stay of the order of the High Court permitting withdrawal of 50% of amount without security could not be understood by the officer. The officer is holding a responsible position of a Civil Judge of senior Division. Even a new entrant to judicial service would not commit such mistake assuming it was a mistake. Despite these glaring facts, we assume, as pleaded by the judicial officer, that he could not understand the order and, thus, on that assumption it would be a case of outright negligence, which, in fact, stands admitted but wilful attempt to violate the order for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
