Telling lies repeatedly in judicial proceedings has proved costly to a man as the Delhi High Court has convicted him for contempt saying such 'unscrupulous litigants' need to be dealt with an iron hand.

Justice Kailash Gambhir held Mohd Shamim guilty of contempt for giving false statements in a civil case filed against his brother for claiming possession of a shop.

The court convicted him saying he 'committed a greater sin by repeating his untruthful and false stand in the court on May 21, 2012 after speaking truth in mosque'.

It held him guilty pointing out that the courts generally dislike launching of contempt of court proceedings.

"More often than not the courts are hesitant to initiate perjury and contempt proceedings against such unscrupulous litigants and even if initiated they take much time in final culmination.''

"But in the present circumstances, this court is of the considered view that Mohd Shamim has committed contempt of court in the face of the court," the court said.

"He has also committed a greater sin by repeating his untruthful and false stand in the court on May 21, 2012 after speaking truth in mosque.

"The present case is a glaring example of the conduct of the likes of decree holder Mohd Shamim who perhaps has no fear of law and therefore such unscrupulous litigants have to be dealt with an iron hand there being no room for leniency or indulgence," the court added.

The court's decision came on Mohd Shamim's plea seeking execution of a 2008 judgement by which his brother Shahnawaz Khan was to give back the possession of a shop to him (Shamim) as he was the real owner.

Shamim, however, in judicial proceedings, concealed the fact that he had already compromised the case with his brother Shahnawaz and received Rs one lakh, out of settlement amount Rs five lakh, in this regard.

Taking note of Shamim's flip-flops, Justice Gambhir had earlier issued him a show cause notice asking as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

Shamim, in his reply, tendered an unconditional apology for hurting the dignity of the court. However, the apology was rejected with a detailed order.

In his order, Justice Gambhir said contemnor Shamim made 'correct' statement in a mosque after taking oath of holy Quran before the court-appointed commissioners.

Later in the court, Shamim, however, took a u-turn and said he neither settled the case with his brother nor received Rs one lakh as part of the settlement amount.

"The decree-holder has further deposed that the statement made by him in the mosque in the presence of independent public witnesses was the true and correct statement and the statements made by him in court before and after the statement made by him in the mosque are incorrect.''

''The said affidavit filed by the DH is a clear admission of guilt on his part of giving a false statement on oath not once but twice in the court," the court said.

"The paradox that is emerging in the present state of affairs and epitomised by the case at hand is distressing to say the least where the edifice of the justice dispensation system is the pursuit of truth in every situation, the litigants are lying on the face of the court without any demur," it said adding that a judge is not an 'umpire' but he has a role in finding the truth and administering justice.

Convicting Shamim for the contempt, the court said "it is distressing that the present decree holder has no respect for the rule of law and rather has no fear of the Court of law."