JAGANNATH SINGH AND OTHERS versus DR. RAM NARESH SINGH

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 10-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

970 
JAGANNATH SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
DR. RAM NARESH SINGH 
March 10, 1970. 
~· 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.,A. N .. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure-Case not properly described Jn cause list-
Non-<Jppearance. of counsel and partY;-Whe!' excusable. 
A motion for contempt against the appellants was made and it was 
shown on the daily cause list on Monday, !st of May 1967 before a Judge 
of the High Court. On that day the case did not reach and it was shown 
on the next day .. The name of the counsel of the appellants was 
not 
correctly mentioned in the cause list of !st ef May, but the next day the 
entry was correctly made. When the case was called, tile appellants \Vere 
absent as also therr counsel. The order '"'" paswd ex.parte imposing 
fines on the appellants. The clerk of the counsel tiled an affidavit stating 
that he missed the case on the .first day as his counsel's name was not 
' oori'ectly recorded, and as contempt matter. are usually shown on Monday, 
he overlooked it the following day also. 
It was also 
stated that bis 
·counsel was informed by another counsel that his case had been called 
out and when his OO?lllSOl went to enquire, he found that the judgment 
bad already been delivered. 
An application, was thereafter made for 
rehearing the case after vacating the order. The Judge did not accept the 
explanation. In appeal, this Court, 
, HELD :-The High Court contributed to the failure of the paify to 
appear before it on the first day and in these circumstances, the High 
Court should have seen its way to hear the counsel when he put. an appli-
cation for re-hearing. 
The omission to mention the case correctly in the cause list was a 
mistake of the Court itself and some indulgence was, the'refore, to be 
shown to the party who bad been misled by this erroneous entry. It is 
no doubt true that on the next day, the entry was correctly made. When 
the counsel knew that his case was not in the CaU>e list the previous 
day he .. ought to have looked into the Cause List for the next day's work. 
There was some negligence on the part of the counsel or his cletk but it 
was not so grave as to disentitle the party to be heard, and in any event, 
tJuo alleged contemnars could not be punished for a mistake on the part 
of their counsel or the counsel's clerk. 
. 
Further this was a case in which the counsel must have an opportunity 
of explaini~g his conduct and the conduct of his clients in reference to the 
order of stay for whose disobedience the charge of contempt was made. 
[972 B-0] 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeals 
Nos. 59 and 60 of 1968.. 
Appeals by special \eave from the judgments and orders «lated 
May 2, 1967 and May 18, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in 
Criminal Misc. Contempt Case No. 53 of 1966. 
M. V. Goswami, for the appellant (in both the appeals) 
S. S. Khanduja and Kailash Chander for the respondents (in 
both the appeals) . 
·· 
O. P. Rana, for the interveners. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
' 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JAGANNATH v. RAM NARESH (lfjdayatullah, C.J.) 
971 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. These two appeals arise out of two sepa-
rate proceedings in the High, Court of Allahabad. 
CriminaI 
Appeal No. 60 of 1968 arises out of an order by which the ap-
pellants held guilty of contempt and fined, asked the Court to 
vacate the order and to rehear the case. 
CriminaI AppeaI No. 
59 of 1968 concerns the main order passed in the case holding 
the appellants guilty of contempt and imposing fines on them. We 
have not considered the merits of Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1968 
be<:ause in our opinion, Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1968 should be al-
lowed with the consequentiaI order that the conviction· for con-
tempt of Court should be set aside and the case remanded to the 
High Court for re-hearing. 
It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case because we 
are only concerned with the absence of counsel and parties when 
the motion for contempt was heard in the High Court. The case 
was shown in the daily Cause I..ist of Monday, the 1st May, 1967 
before Mr. Justice Gyanendra Kumar in Court Room No. 2. On 
that day, there were two cases fixed at the top for dictation of 
judgment and for orders. 
Thereafter, this case was shown at the 
12th place. 
The entry read correctly in so far as the names· of the 
parties were concerned and the number of the case but by some 
mischance, the name of the counsel was shown as Mr. C.B. Gupta 
in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.