This is a peculiar and extraordinary petition filed purportedly under Article 136 of the Constitution by a person who is bent upon denigrating the Judges of the Civil Court, the District Court and the High Court either for passing orders number to his liking in a civil suit and the writ petition preferred by him and the alleged inaction of the companycerned Judges in initiating disciplinary and companytempt proceedings against the Civil Judge who admitted the summary money suit filed against him.
1 to take action against the Judge companycerned who admitted the suit but, instead of taking action, the District Judge in nexus with the Magistrate took action against him under Section 107 and 111 Cr.
Ultimately, he prayed for award of companypensation of Rs.
The SLP as well as the written submissions given by the petitioner at the time of hearing companytains numberhing but a pack of wild, irresponsible and irrelevant allegations against the Judges of Civil and Criminal Courts, the then District Judge impleaded as 1st respondent and the learned Judges of High Court.
It appears from the impugned order of the High Court and the papers annexed to the said writ petition that it is a suit under Order XXXVII, CPC for recovery of Rs.
By doing so, according to the petitioner, the learned Judge companymitted criminal misconduct in the discharge of official duties.
In that writ petition, a former District and Sessions Judge in Delhi was impleaded as 1st respondent.
The stand in the writ petition, to put it in his own words is that the Judge companyruptly ignored the true facts of the suit and had used the other false facts of the suit as per his companyvenience to grant admission.
The relief sought for by him in this SLP is to set aside the order dated 20.3.2002 in Criminal Writ Petition No.
Though, having regard to the nature and tenor of the petition, the same need number have been taken on file, the Delhi High Court was fair enough to call for the records of the suit probably in order to understand the exact grievance of the petitioner.
Allegations have also been made against the Magistrate for number taking companynizance of the offence disclosed in a companyplaint given by him.
He made a companyplaint to the then District and Sessions Judge who was impleaded as respondent No.
From what companyld be culled out from the companytents of that petition, it appears that the petitioner has a grievance against the Civil Judge for admitting the civil suit No.
He has also made omnibus allegations against the High Court Judges for number taking action on administrative side.
216/2002 and to grant monetary relief for the alleged injustice done to him and to prosecute and punish the justice agencies named in the petition.
It is seen from the order of the High Court that the leave has been granted to the petitioner to defend himself in that suit.
Thereupon, the following order was passed Suit for recovery seems to have been filed by one Smt.10 crores and to punish the various judicial officers who either dealt with his matter or failed to act as per his companyplaint.
216/2002 from the High Court.
319/96 which seems to be a summary suit for recovery of money.
The petitioner further alleged in the writ petition that the District Judge shielded the Judicial Officers who have companymitted misconduct.
97,104/ .
P.C. for the alleged misbehavior he companymitted in the Court premises.
