AP High Court Reprimands Dr KA Paul For Calling Judge 'Mad' While Appearing In-Person, Warns Of Contempt Proceedings If He Doesn't Appoint Lawyer
Recently, when Dr. K.A. Paul a humanitarian and evangelist was permitted to represent himself in a review petition challenging an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a criminal plea, he commented that “the Judge has gone so mad in passing the order.” Further, when he was reprimanded, he stated “I have been misunderstood. The said statement is for the 'District...
Recently, when Dr. K.A. Paul a humanitarian and evangelist was permitted to represent himself in a review petition challenging an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a criminal plea, he commented that “the Judge has gone so mad in passing the order.”
Further, when he was reprimanded, he stated “I have been misunderstood. The said statement is for the 'District Judge'.”
The matter was listed before Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari on the 5th of this month who noted that the comment was 'highly condemnable'. Relying upon Ajay Kumar Panday, Advocate, in Re. and Roshan Lal Ahuja, in Re, the bench held:
“The judgment under review is not by the District Judge. Learned District Judge(s) and any other Judicial Officer(s) are part of judicial system and play pivotal role in administration of justice. Use of such language by party-in-person is highly condemnable.”
Following this, the permission accorded to Dr. Paul by the Committee of Registrars to appear party-in-person was set aside and he was directed to appoint a lawyer to represent him, and even approach APHC Legal Services, if required.
When the matter was called for hearing yesterday, Dr Paul appeared before the court yet again, this time with an application to set aside the order passed on the 5th of September.
The Court dismissed the petition and noted that appropriate proceedings, including contempt proceedings, would be initiated if he appeared in person before the Court again.
“In spite of the aforesaid order, dated 05.09.2024, the review petitioner is again appearing in person today and has filed this application as party-in-person. Once the review petitioner was not permitted to appear as party-in-person, the application filed by him as party-in-person cannot be maintained. 6. I.A.No.6 of 2024 is dismissed. The review petition is adjourned to 23.09.2024. If the review petitioner again appears in person in this matter, appropriate proceedings, including contempt proceedings may be drawn against him.”
Background:
The case under review involves two Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) challenging orders passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The main case was filed under section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, seeking an inquiry into the affairs of two societies and related reliefs. Respondents (including Dr. K.A. Paul) filed an I.A. to dismiss the O.P., claiming it was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) due to previous cases filed on the same cause of action.
The trial court dismissed the O.P., but not under Order II Rule 2. Instead, it found the case barred under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. Challenging this order the petitioners in the Revision Petition preferred a revision against the order before the High Court.
It was argued that the trial court erred in: a) Concluding that all the OPs had the same cause of action b) Dismissing the case under Order IX Rule 9 CPC without giving them an opportunity to present arguments on this point.
The High Court found merit in the petitioners' arguments, particularly that they were deprived of the opportunity to present their case when the trial court considered provisions not initially raised.
Thus, the CRPs were allowed and the order passed by the trial was set aside. The matter was remanded, and the trial court was directed to hear I.A. afresh, giving both parties an opportunity to present their arguments, and then proceed with the main case based on the outcome.
Challenging this order, Dr. Paul has filed the review.
CRP 242 & 361 of 2024.