LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. versus SAGI SUBBA RAJU AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

., 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 260 
A 
SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. 
V. 
SAGI SUBBA RAJU AND ORS. ETC. 
(Special Lec;ive Petition (C) Nos. 20374-76 of 2004) 
8 
MAY 6, 2009 
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
,; 
Contempt of court -
Application for transposing 
c applicants as petitioners in SLP - Swearing in, of false 
affidavit to the effect that her mother-in-law expired, as such 
she be transposed as petitioner-. Notice to applicant - Held: 
Person named by applicant as dead is alive - Filing of the 
application and the affidavit re-affirming the position was not 
D bonafide - Also, applicants did not clarify the position though 
opportunity was given to them - Thus, applicants guilty of 
contempt of this Court - Exemplary costs of Rs. 25,0001-
imposed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) Nos. 
E 20374-20376 of 2004. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.09.2003 of the High 
.. 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Letters Patent 
Appeal No. 323 of 1992 and Appeals Nos. 2959 and 2960 
F 2001. 
M. N. Rao. A. D.N. Rao, A. Ramesh and A Subba Rao, 
for the Petitioners. 
Abhijit Sengupta, K. L. Sastry, Amit Kumar Srivastava and 
G R.V. Kameshwaran for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered: 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. When the matter was taken 
up on 3.2.2009, the Court passed the following order. 
H 
260 
SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA AND ANR. v. 
261 
., 
Ill"'' ... 
SAGI SUBBA RAJU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
"When the matter was taken up, Mr. M.N. Rao, 
A 
learned senior counsel brought to the notice that I.A.Nos. 
9 to 11/2008 had been filed for transposing the applicants 
as petitioners. It is also prayed that they may be transposed 
as petitioner Nos. 2 <md 3 from proforma respondent Nos. 
2 and 5 in speqial !eave petition ag<1inst the order in ~PA B 
No. No. 323191. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 from respondent 
'1 
Nos. 1 and ~ in speo!!'ll !e11vei petition a~ainst the order in 
Appeal too. 2959/2001 and Appeal No. 2960/2001. 
This application is filed on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, a c 
statement was made on 25.8.2008 by !earned counsel for 
respondent 1 that the petitioner had died. Learned 
counsel wanted to obtain further instructions in the matter. 
Thereafter it appears that a copy of affida'li!_ has been 
.... 
. 
. 
ser\ted on learned counsel for the petitioners as well, some 
of the respondents that Sunkara Lakshminarasamma had 
D 
died about 1 and 1/2 years earlier. The affidavit is dated 
26.12.2008. A copy has been filed for our record by 
learned counsel for the petitioner. An affidavit has been 
filed by Sunkara lakshmf narasamma which has been filed 
on 30th January, 2009 stating that the affidavit filed by 
E 
Sunkara Kamala is wrong and she is alive and a false 
, 
affidavit has been flied. 
ยท-1 
In view of the aforesaid position, let notice be issued 
to Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall 
F 
not been taken against her for swearing a false affidavit 
for the purpose of this case as is evident from the fact that 
copies thereof have been served on learned counsel for 
the parties. Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks. 
'. 
~. 
Personal presence is dispensed with for the present. 
G 
The matter shall be listed on 24th February, 200ยฅ. 
2. In view of the statement made, notice was issued to 
Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall not be 
taken against her for swearing a false affidavit for the purpose 
H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 
A of this case as is evident from the fact that the copies thereof 
have been served on learned counsel for the parties. Reply was 
to be filed within two weeks. At that stage personal appearance 
was dispensed with. 
8 
3. When the matter was listed on 4.3.2009, in spite of the 
directions of this Court, the respondent did not file any reply. 
This is apparently a clear case of contempt as false affidavit 
has been filed. On 8.9.2008 it was brought to the notice of this 
Court by Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners 
that after verification from his clients he has ascertained that 
C Mrs. Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Thawala Divya Sarojini 
Kasidevi are alive. 
D 
E 
4. The affidavit which has been filed on 26.12.2008 states 
as follows: 
"I, Smt. Sunkara Kalama @ Dorasani W/o late S. 
Veeraswamy Rio Bhimavaram, Distt. East Godhavari do 
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 
1. 
I 
am 
the 
daughter-in-law of Sunkara 
Lakshminarasamma. I am well convers

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