an unnecessary reference to a judicial precedent or erroneous
submission in law is made, the judge considering the matter would
reject the reliance thereon or the submission made. However,
certainly reference to a judicial precedent cannot be termed a
contumacious act.
61. There is even an instance of the court considering the question
as to whether citing overruled precedent would amount to contempt
was considered by a ld. Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the pronouncement reported at AIR 2001 P&H 49 Balbir
Singh Wasu v. Parbhandak Committee Gurudwara Sahib . It was
held thus:
"25. It was further submitted that the plaintiff's counsel
committed contempt of the trial Court as well as that of the
appellate Court and he committed contempt of this court also
by relying on AIR 1954 Pb. 125 which was overruled in AIR
1984 P&H 439. I do not think any contempt was committed by
the plaintiff if he cited AIR 1954 Pb. 125. After going through
both the judgments, the court could come to know that AIR
1954 Pb. 125 had been over-ruled in AIR 1984 P&H 439.
Even otherwise no contempt is made out if the plaintiff did not
intend duping the court. He had relied upon 1990 Civil Court
Cases 406 in which AIR 1984 P&H 439 had been relied upon.
By going through AIR 1984 P&H 439, the court would have
known that AIR 1954 Pb. 125 had been overruled. No
contempt was thus committed by the plaintiff/counsel."
Therefore, unless the intention was to mislead the court, erroneous
citing of an overruled judgment may not ipso facto and per se be
considered contumacious.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 9th March, 2017
CCP(REF)No.3/2016
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .
v
DSP JAYANT KASHMIRI & ORS
CORAM:
MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
