P L D 1958 Karachi 433 (PLP)

(1) P L D 1954 Sind 256 (2) P L D 1955 Sind 78 (3) P L D 1956 Kar. 203" ‑para. 12 (iv). The Chief Judge, Small Causes Court has tried to fill in the lacunas in the opponent's case by his rigmarole, unsound and misconceived reasonings. (para. 12 (v) ). The Chief Judge has failed to apply his mind to this aspect of the matter, and in his zeal to favour a wealthy local landlord at the cost of a poor refugee businessman, has ignored all canons of justice equity and good conscience ..para. 12 (vi), That a biased and partial judgment has been passed by the Chief Judge, who has been guided by consideration other than judicial to help the landlord and to ruin the applicant. (para. 12 (xi)). These are some of the statements in Review application to which objection has been taken on the ground that they are highly scandalous, made with a view to lower the judge in the estimation of the public, and those who count. Some these aspersions are made against the learned Judge in his capacity as Revisional Authority, exercising powers delegated to him by the Central Government under section 15 (5) of the Rent Restriction Act and since in that capacity, he was not acting as a Court, the allegations made against him in respect of what lie did as a Revisional Authority will, in our opinion, not amount to contempt of Court within the meaning of section 3‑of the Contempt of Court Act. On this technical ground, all that has been said against the learned Judge as a Revisional Tribunal, will have to be excluded from our consideration. But, this cannot be said with regard to the aspersions, made against the learned Judge in para. 12 (iv) of the Review application. In one of the cited cases mentioned in this para, the, learned Judge has acted as Court and not as Revisional Tribunal. In this para, among others, allegations of partiality and lack of judicial honesty, have been made against him, and in support of these allegations, the rulings have been quoted "as a testimony of his partiality and lack of judicial honesty." We have gone through the judgment and nowhere have we noticed any finding that the learned Judge is partial or that he lacks in judicial honesty. The allegations are not only false but highly derogatory, and such as would at once shake confidence of the public in the learned Judge, so essential for the proper administration of justice. There is no doubt that such wild and irresponsible statements are bound to undermine the dignity of the Court. Moreover, these statements were not at all necessary for the purpose for which the review application was filed. Fate of the review application did not depend on the averment in it that the learned Judge had shown partiality or lack of judicial honesty, in some other cases. These aspersions were obviously unwarranted. It looks as if they were made to malign the learned Judge rather than to have his order reviewed. Respondent No. 1 has filed an apology. He has stated that the application had been drafted by his counsel Mr. Mohsin Siddiqi, and that he had no intention of disrespecting the learned Judge. He has further stated that he had never instructed his counsel Mr. Mohsin Siddiqi to draft the application in the language in which it was drafted, and that his instructions were only for filing a review application in the legal manner, he himself being a lay man, knowing nothing of legal vocabulary. He says he signed the application without reading it as he had confidence in his counsel. Respondent No. 2, Mr. Mohsin Siddiqi has also tendered an apology. He has however denied having drafted the review application, but the language used in para. 3 of his apology is significant. This is what he says : "That the review application submitted to the Ministry of Interior on behalf of Yasin Ghani was not drafted by me, and hence I took no responsibility of its draft and contents, and this is why I did not sign the application as an advocate." This para shows that Mr. Mohsin Siddiqi was aware of the obnoxious statements in the application, and that they appeared so objectionable to him that he; in order to avoid the dangerous consequences, which flow from such statements, did not sign the same. On his own showing, the application was submitted to the Ministry not by the respondent No. 1 but by someone on his behalf. Who that someone can be if not his advocate ? However the broad fact remains, namely, that the application was con fessedly argued by Mr. Mohsin Siddiqi and this he did, knowing fully well that it contained statements derogatory to the learned Judge, and so derogatory, that he himself did not consider it proper to sign it as an advocate. It is obvious that by agreeing to argue this application, he agreed to associate himself with what was stated in the application. At any rate, there is nothing to show that he accepted the brief with any reservation. We are therefore satisfied that both the respondents, have committed contempt of Court in that they have made most scandalous statements in respect of the learned Judge, attacking his sense of fairness and judicial honesty. In fairness to the learned Judge there is absolutely no foundation for the baseless allegations. The apologies have been tendered at a late stage i.e., when the matter came up for hearing. If it was a case of remorse, there was nothing to prevent them from tendering it earlier. Moreover, we consider that it is high time, this reprehensible tendency to malign Courts in season and out of season, must be curbed and the contemners should not be permitted to leave the Court with an impression that they can scandalize a Judge with impunity, and get away with it by mere tender of apology. We therefore order each of the two respondents to pay a s. 500 or in default to suffer S. I. for one month. K.B.A. Respondents convicted.