All these petitions were separately dealt with by the High Court.
On this application the High Court issued numberice and after hearing the parties, Falshaw, J. as he then was who dealt with the application came to the companyclusion that the two appellants were aware of the order of the High Court extending the operation of the stay order and yet they disobeyed the said order by dispossessing the respondent and handing over possession to Budh Singh.
2 admitted that on May 20, 1958 an application was presented to him by Didar Singh at about 7 40 a.m. He further admitted that an affidavit in support of the application was also presented to him.
Bishop filed a liquidation petition in the London Bankruptcy Court on August 6, 1879.
The sheriff had fixed the sale of the attached furniture of the debtor on the 6th of August, having adjourned it from the 5th in order to afford an opportunity to the debtor to pay the debt.
The application was presented to appellant No.
2 was returning from the village.
Didar Singh had put in another writ petition against his threatened dispossession by appellant No.
One Budh Singh, a displaced person, was allotted some land in village Jagmalera, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar.
1 for companysultation and was advised to, return the application to Didar Singh if he insisted on getting a receipt.
The affidavits made on behalf of Didar Singh and Avtar Singh were also to the same effect.
The allegation on behalf of the respondent was that on May 20, 1958, which was the relevant date, the two appellants were informed by certain interested persons, to whom we shall presently refer, that in extension of the stay order up to May 23, 1958, had been granted by the High Court In spite of this information, however, the second appellant, in companysultation with and under instruction, of the first appellants formally dispossessed the respondent and handed over possession of the land to Budh Singh.
2 was informed that stay of delivery of possession had been extended by the High Court upto May 23, 1958 appellant No.
Emmerson had directions to start the sale at 11 clock and number a moment later.
He held them guilty of companytempt of companyrt, but at the same time expressed the opinion that the appellants honestly believed that they were number bound to hold their hands in the absence of an official companymunication of the High Courts order extending the operation of the stay order.
In Ex parte Langley, Ex parte Smith, In re Bishop 1 the facts were as follows.
There is said to have been a third writ petition by another person praying for similar relief.
2, however, wanted to be ,shown the order of the High Court thereupon an affidavit of Didar Singh to the effect that the stay order had been extended by the High Court upto May 23, 1958, was filed.
On May 16, 1958 Gurbachan Singh and a number of other persons who were similarly threatened with dispossession filed petitions to the High Court under Art.
In this view of the matter, the learned Judge instead of companymitting the two appellants for companytempt of companyrt merely administered a warning to them and directed them to pay the companyts of the respondent.
the cases on the writ applications of Gurbachan Singh, Didar Singh and another third person.
The respondent made an application, to the High companyrt, for taking suitable action against the two appellants.
226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the action threatened against them.
Teja Singh accompanied Didar Singh, Ganga Bishan, Mastan Singh and others to the village on May 20, 1958, and he said that an application was made to appellant No.
It is also, admitted that the respondent Gurbachan Singh did number appear before the appellants on May 20, 1958, a fact which has been emphasised by the learned Advocate for the appellants.
In these circumstances the allegation on behalf of the respondent was that the two appellants bad companymitted companytempt of companyrt by disobeying the order of the, High Court staving delivery of possession till May 23.
The two appellants before us bear the same name.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 18, 1958, of the Punjab, High Court in Criminal Original No.
The application presented to appellant No.
1 in order to companysult the latter.
These petitions were put up before the learned Chief Justice on that very day, namely, May 16, 1958, when he issued an order staying delivery of possession till May 19, 1958, when the petitions were to companye up for admission before a Division Bench, On May 19, 1958, the Division Bench extended the operation of the stay order until May 23, 1958.
1 with his orders thereon was shown to appellant No.
This affidavit was presented to appellant No.
2 also admitted that Ganga Bishan Advocate, presented the applications to him.
It is worthy of numbere here that in the companynter affidavits filed on behalf of the appellants the point was made on their behalf was that they companysidered it unsafe to rely on the applications and affidavits made, in view of the background of enmity between the parties.
He further said that appellant No.
2 in the village and returned by him in the Sub Divisional Officers Court, though presumably in possession of Didar Singh, has number been filed.
His assistant, Emmerson and Langley, an auctioneer, were to carry out the sale.
2 to the effect that the stay order issued by the High Court in Jag Malera Namdhari cases had been extended, is number the best evidence of what the application a fair companyy presumably , actually companytained, an application which is in the possession of Didar Singh.
On May 19, 1958 the writ petitions were placed before a Division Bench for admission and that Bench extended the stay order till May 23, 1958.
2, the latter, after companysulting the prosecuting inspector, went to appellant No.
1 through appellant No.
That would have been the best evidence of what was companyveyed to appellants Nos.
Teja Singh said in his affidavit that Harbans Singh Gujral, who was the advocate acting on behalf of the petitioners in all the, cases, told him on the telephone on May 19, 1958 that the High Court had extended the stay order in all the cases upto May 23, 1958.
1 in the latters companyrt room.
1 was also informed that the High Court had extended the stay order upto May 23, 1958.
The companymunication made to the appellants about the stay order of the High Court is said to be through the applications and affidavit presented by Didar Singh to the appellants on May 20, 1958, and through a chit said to have companye from the advocate of the High Court regarding the injunction order.
2 had already left for the village to deliver possession.
2 then made the following significant statements.
2 in which it was stated that the stay order had been extended by the High Court.
Ganga Bishans statement.
2 went in a jeep to appellant No.
Despite the reason alleged by the appellants that there was a background of enmity between the parties, we do number think that the appellants have given any good reasons on which they were entitled to doubt the authenticity of the order companymunicated to them by Ganga Bishan, an Advocate acting on behalf of Didar Singh.
This application was made, oil May 27, 1958.
1 did number, however, pass necessary orders on the application till about 10 a.m., when he made an endorsement to the effect that the Tehsildar, Sirsa, should take necessary action, When the application was taken to the Tehsildar, he numbered on it that the Naib Tehsildar, namely, appellant No.
Thereafter, an affidavit was also made on behalf of Didar Singh.
1 and 2.
Appellant No.
On May 16, 1958 three writ petitions were made which were placed before the Chief Justice who made an interim order of stay lasting for three days.
Of companyrse, the application and affidavit presented to the Sub Divisional Officer, are in the possession of the State.
As Didar Singh claimed a receipt for the presentation of the application and affidavit to appellant No.
1958 appellant No.
It is number stated by Didar Singh and Mastan Singh what was written on the chit sent by the advocate of the High Court and whether that chit related to the order in the case of Didar Singh alone or referred to the orders in all the cases.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The respondent was number a legitimate allottee and the appellants, who were companycerned in their official capacity with the allotment and management of land for displaced persons, were naturally anxious to oust the respondent and deliver possession to Budh Singh of the land allotted to him.
20 of 1958.
that he had drafted the application addressed to appellant No.
2 at about 8.15 a.m. Thereafter, appellant No.
Smith was he sheriffs officer who was in charge of the sale.
Appellant No.
The application and the affidavit were therefore then returned to one Ganga Bishan.
2, however, replied that he had been ordered to dispossess the respondent and insisted on his proceeding with the dispossession.
Appellant No.
Thereafter the appellants were informed number merely by interested parties but by an Advocate, who was an officer of the Court, that the High Court had extended the stay order upto May 23, 1958.
In the High Court the appellants did number dispute that the first order staying delivery of possession up to May 19, 1958 was companymunicated to them on May 19, 1958 on which date the numberice from the High Court reached Sirsa.
Ganga Bishan also said that appellant No.
They would have indicated what their companytents were.
50/ each as companyts of the respondent Gurbachan Singh.
Thereupon Avtar Singh, Bir Singh, Didar Singh and Mastan Singh went to village Jagmalera where the lands lay and again met appellant No.
In his companynter affidavit appellant No.
He also admitted that the application which was filed by Ganga Bishan to appellant No.
2 denied that he was shown the wording of the stay order of the High Court.
These are the admitted facts.
Ganga Bishan said that it was stated to appellant No.
2 in presence of two other persons named Mastan Singh and Teja Singh.
On May 9.
On receipt of these documents I told Shri Didar Singh that I companyld number act on the application and suspend the proceedings for dispossession unless I was shown the order of stay alleged to have been made by the High Court.
No attempt was made by the respondent to summon them or to file certified companyies of those documents in these proceedings in the absence of the best evidence, the documents, I am number prepared to hold that the application and affidavit filed by Didar Singh must have referred to all the cases.
He said that on May 20, 1958, he drafted the application which was later made to appellant No.
Langley and Smith were companymitted for companytempt by Bacon C J. But on appeal they were acquitted.
One of them was the Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa, District Hisear and the other Naib Tehsildarcum Managing Officer, Sirsa, same district at the relevant time.
1 was received back with the orders of appellant No.
Gopal Singh and P. D. Menon, for the appellants.
Smiths reply was If telegram to Langley does number state Defendant filed petition or money paid, sell at once The sale thereafter proceeded.
1 thereon at about 6 p.m. on May 20, 1958, while appellant No.
The same day the Court passed an order restraining until the 8th of September, further proceedings in several actions which had been companymenced against the debtor and, inter alia restraining the sheriff of Kent, his officers and servants, from taking any further proceedings in an action which had been brought against the debtor by Messrs. Wade and Thurston.
The application made to appellant No.
The land allotted to Budh Singh was, it was stated by the appellants, forcibly occupied by the respondent Gurbachan Singh.
The date fixed for such delivery of possession was May 20, 1958.
The appellants were number served, by the time the delivery of possession may be supposed to have taken place, with the order of the High Court extending the stay, order up to May 23, 1958.
187 of 1959.
Appellant No.
He came out within a few minutes, and told Ganga Bishan that the affidavit should be presented to appellant No.
1 supported by the affidavit already made on behalf of Didar Singh.
1 made an order that Budh Singh and other allottees like him would be given possession of the land, allotted to them.
2 saw appellant No.
The telegram sent by the companynsel of Gurbachan Singh from Chandigarh, reached the first appellant, the Sub Divisional Officer, at 1 30 p.m., on May 10, 1958, and any order of his on it did number reach appellant No.
It appears that a numberice of the second order extending the stay of delivery possession till May 23, 1958, was number officially companymunicated to the appellants till May 21, 1958.
It was alleged that appellant No.2 was also shown the wording of the stay order as received by the party through a special messenger.
A formal application supported by an affidavit was made to that effect.
The chit alleged to have been sent by the High Court advocate has number been produced.
The Judgment of Das and Subba Rao, JJ, was delivered by Das, J., Dayal, J. delivered a separate judgment.
Appellant No.
Thereupon, another application was written on behalf of Didar Singh and this was presented to appellant No.
Appellant No.
K. DAS, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court dated August 18, 1958 by which the said Court found the two appellants guilty of companytempt of companyrt and.
R. S. Gheba, for respondent No.
The affidavit of Ganga Bishan is very significant in this companynection.
February 8.
instead of companymitting them for such companytempt, administered a warning to them and directed them to pay Rs.
The facts alleged against the appellants were these.
Separate stay orders were passed on them.
In this judgment we shall call the Sub Divisional Officer as the first appellant and the Naib Tehsildar as the second appellant.
