Skip to content


Mohd. Ramzan Khan Vs. Abdul Majid Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContempt of Court
CourtJammu and Kashmir High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 147 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1984J& K67
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 47, Rule 1
AppellantMohd. Ramzan Khan
RespondentAbdul Majid Khan
Appellant Advocate M.A. Qayoom, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.N. Bhat, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....whether the application for contempt previously filed was maintainable or not. the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order was erroneous because once rule nisi had been issued and the applicant had been called upon to lead evidence in support of the rule, the court was estopped from calling upon the applicant to show whether the application was prima facie maintainable or not. in support of this argument learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this court in civil revision no. 153 of 1981. apparently the decision supports the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, but the decision must be read subject to the provisions of order 47 c. p. c. which enable a court to review its order even on its own motion. that aspect had not been considered.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, C.J.

This revision is directed against an order dt. 23-11-1982 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Badgam calling upon the applicant to argue whether the application for contempt previously filed was maintainable or not. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order was erroneous because once rule nisi had been issued and the applicant had been called upon to lead evidence in support of the rule, the Court was estopped from calling upon the applicant to show whether the application was prima facie maintainable or not. In support of this argument learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 153 of 1981. Apparently the decision supports the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, but the decision must be read subject to the provisions of Order 47 C. P. C. which enable a Court to review its order even on its own motion. That aspect had not been considered in this judgment. Perhaps, because, it did not arise for consideration As such the judgment is distinguishable in the present case. Here the Court has invoked the powers of review suo motu and it is not estopped from doing so, when the suo motu power of review is available to it. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27th Aug. 1983.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //