REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 20374-76/2004
Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sagi Subba Raju and Ors. etc. ...Respondents
ORDER
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. When the matter was taken up on 3.2.2009, the Court passed the
following order
“When the matter was taken up, Mr. M.N. Rao, 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
and 3 from proforma respondent Nos. 2 and 5 in special leave
petition against the order in LPA No. No. 323/91. Petitioner
Nos. 3 and 4 from respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in special leave
petition against the order in Appeal too. 2959/2001 and Appeal
No. 2960/2001.
This application is filed on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, a
statement was made on 25.8.2008 by learned 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 affidavit has been served on learned
counsel for the petitioners as well, some of the respondents that
Sunkara Lakshminarasamma had 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 lakshminarasamma which has been
filed on 30th January, 2009 stating that the affidavit filed by
Sunkara Kamala is wrong and she is alive and a false affidavit
has been filed.
In view of the aforesaid position, let notice be issued to
Sunkara Kalama to show cause as to why action shall 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.
The matter shall be listed on 24th February, 2009.”
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 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.
2
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
Mrs. Sunkara Lakshminarasamma and Thavvala Divya Sarojini Kasidevi are
alive.
4. The affidavit which has been filed on 26.12.2008 states as follows:
“I, Smt. Sunkara Kalama @ Dorasani W/o late S.
Veeraswamy R/o 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 conversant with the facts, records and
circumstances of the case. Hence I am competent to
swear in this affidavit.
2. I say that my mother-in-law had died one year and six
month ago. I have filed an application for transposing as
a petitioner in the above special leave petition and state
that the averments facts made therein are true to my
knowledge and information derived from the record of
the case.
3. I say that the averments of facts stated herein above are
true to my knowledge and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
3
Verified at Bhimavaram on this 26th day of December,
2008″
5. After the statements made by learned counsel for the petitioners that
those whom the contemnor has named as dead are alive there is no denial of
the statements. Opportunity was granted to the concerned respondents to
clarify the position but that has not been done.
6. The application was made for transposition as petitioners in the
special leave petitions. In view of the apparent false statement stated in the
affidavit, it is clear that the application filed and the affidavit thereafter re-
affirming the position were not done bona fide. That being so, the applicants
on the face of it are guilty of contempt of this Court. Exemplary costs of
Rs.25,000/- is imposed. The amount shall be deposited in this Court within
a period of two months. If the amount is not paid the contemnor shall suffer
simple imprisonment for three months.
7. Ordered accordingly.
…………………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……………………………………..J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
May 06, 2009
4