Dhirendra Kumar and anr. Vs. Binay Kumar Singh and ors.

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........the filing of such an application in a proceeding for probate of the original will in the form it was sought for in the petition, i think that these are all matters, which have to be decided by the court after trial and at the time of final disposal of the proceeding. but, i find substance in the objection raised on behalf of the opposite parties, the petitioners before me, that the trial court was completely in error in proceeding to make observations touching on the merits of the claim. the trial court in its order itself observed that the matter is at the preliminary stage and issues and evidence are yet to come. in such a situation, it is not expected of the trial court to deal with the merits of the claim in any manner. in fact, all the observations on merits are unwarranted at the stage of considering whether the amendment is to be allowed or not. therefore, it is clear that the observations in the order on merits, appearing in the third penultimate paragraph of the order are unwarranted and uncalled for. they are set aside. the order of the court below is upheld only to the extent of allowing of the amendment. in the circumstances, it is made clear that it is open to the opposite parties, the petitioners before me, to file an additional objection to the amended application, if so advised. it is the duty of the trial court to consider all their objections while disposing of the suit after a proper trial, in accordance with law.5. subject to the above, the proceeding is closed.