226 2 of 1971 72 before the Revenue Board.
The Revenue Officer by his order, dated September 3, 1970, dismissed the suit.
What happened thereafter on that day, according to the allegations in the petition and affidavit, dated October 23, 1973, of Shri V. C. Misra, Advocate filed before the High Court, was as follows That on the said date the opposite party appellant herein heard the companynsel of the parties in the case and was pleased to companyfirm the stay order.
The Board of Revenue passed an order on June 12, 1972, staying the execution of the decree.
Along with the petition of appeal, they made an application for stay of the execution of the ejectment decree.
The application for vacation of stay order came up for hearing before the appellant, herein, in his capacity as Member of the Revenue Board, on October 23, 1973.
The latter also filed a rejoinder affidavit dated December 10, 1973, in which he reiterated the allegations in his petition and in the Annexures thereto.
That even after passing of the order aforesaid the companynsel of the respondent in that appeal addressed the Court opposite party further and during the companyrse of his arguments, the opposite party appellant herein scored the order and vacated the stay order and threw the file for getting the signatures of the parties affixed on the same.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
The material facts giving rise to this appear are as follows Raj Narain alias Raja Sharma, Ram Narain, Tapesh Narain alias Trilok Narain and Hari Narain, respondents instituted Suit No.
Shri V. C. Misra further prayed that the High Court be pleased to take suo motu action under Section 15 1 of the aforesaid Act against the companytemner opposite party or be pleased to pass such other and further order as the Court deems fit.
In Annexure 1 to his petition, Shri V. N. Misra gave particulars of the alleged criminal companyduct of the appellant and of the companytemptuous words uttered by him.
6 framed in the case was referred under Section 331A of the Act to the Revenue Officer, Sub Divisional Office, for seeking declaration under Section 143 or 144 of that Act, with regard to the question as to whether the land in suit was abadi land before the companysolidation and even thereafter.
The opposite party therein, moved an application for vacation of the ex parte stay order.
294 of 1974.
The appellant received this numberice on November 5, 1973 and filed his reply supported by an affidavit dated November 8, 1973, in which he denied the allegations in the petition levelled by Shri V. C. Misra.
Issue No.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut, who, by his order dated April 29, 1972, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with companyts.
The respondent, Shri Vinay Chandra Misra appeared as a companynsel in that Court on behalf of the appellant therein, to oppose the vacation of the stay order.
That on this, the deponent Shri V. N. Mishra requested the opposite party to hear him and when he resisted, the opposite party got infuriated, lost his temper and abused the applicant and ordered the Court peon to throw the deponent physically out of the Court On the preceding facts, Shri Misra, on October 23, 1973, filed a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the appellant, herein, in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, alleging that since the facts stated in the petition and the affidavit, supporting it, show that the opposite party appellant herein companymitted the companytempt of his own Court as that of the High Court as provided under Section 15/16 of the Contempt of Courts Act punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, he deserves to be punished for the same in order to save the dignity, decorum and honour of his Court and that of the Honble High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
115 of 1973.
Contempt Case No.
89/ 168 under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Land Reforms Act hereinafter referred to as the Act for ejectment of eleven defendants.
Against the decree of the Commissioner, the defendants preferred Revenue Second Appeal No.
115/73.
Contempt Case No.
P. Goyal and Pramod Swarup for the Intervener.
P. Rana for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal is directed against an order, dated April 10, 1974, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.
A preliminary objection was taken by the appellant before the High Court, that the latter was number companypetent to take companynizance of the companytempt alleged to have been companymitted in the petition moved by Shri Misra without any reference from the subordinate companyrt or without a motion by the Advocate General.
As pointed out by this Court in Mohd.
In that Annexure, he alleged, inter alia, that the appellant had used these abusive words in respect of him Shri Misra Nalayak Gadhe Sale ko Jail Bhijwadunga Kis Idiot Ne Advocate Bana Diya Hai.
