AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bilal Nazki, J.—This is an application for expunging the remarks passed against the applicant in Civil Revision No. 78 of 1995. This Court
while deciding the civil revision against the order passed by Sub Judge (Municipal Magistrate) Srinagar, made certain remarks about the Sub
Judge. The Sub Judge has filed this application for expunging the remarks. This Court made following observations:--
In total disregard to the well established legal principles relating to the grant of tempe-rary injunctions, by gross non-application of mind and in
utter abuse of the jurisdiction vested in the Court below, coupled with flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and in a manner not
expected of a Judicial Officer, the learned Sub Judge (Municipal Magistrate) Srinagar not only hastened but in fact rushed to grant temporary
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, against the petitioners herein, even without summoning them in the court and in their absence. I must say that the
learned court below has acted unfairly and in disregard to the well established principles of judicial propriety. He passed a patently adverse order
against the petitioners, jeopardising their service interests and that too without so much even as to summoning them in the court or afford them an
opportunity of being heard. The merits and the facts of the case apart, the least that was expected of the Court below was to have called the
petitioners, afford them an opportunity of hearing and then pass the order against them, even though erroneously.
The non-observance of the principles of natural justice apart, this is a case where the court below exercise a jurisdiction which did not patently vest
in it. While saying so, I am not oblivious of the provision contained in Section 9 of the CPC which confers jurisdiction upon the civil court to
entertain any civil suit of the like nature. A bare reading of the plaint would show that the plaintiffs had not made any averments in the plaint which
could even remotely or indirectly make out a case for any personal injury, grief or grievance in so far as the plaintiffs were concerned qua the
defendants No. 4 and 5. Neither did the plaintiffs aver in the plaint as to how and in what manner was any wrong being done to them or as to how
would they suffer. Personally or otherwise if defendants Nos. 4 and 5 would be appointed as Associate Professors.....
After these observations about the learned Judge, the Court passed these directions :--
The Additional Registrar of this Court shall send a copy of this judgment to the Registrar of this Court for being placed on the personal file of the
Presiding Officer of the Court of Sub-Judge (Municipal Magistrate) Srinagar. The Registrar in turn shall also have a copy of this judgment sent to
the Presiding Officer for his information.
It appears that an order of temporary injunction was passed by the applicant against which a revision was taken in High Court and High Court
found that the learned Judge had acted in dis-regard to the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions.
The learned Sub Judge submits that the order which was passed by him was made only for a period often days so that the status-quo could be
maintained and there was no mala fide on the part of the applicant. A fair and serious question of trial had been made out and he was of the view
that a prima facie case existed, therefore, he had passed the order.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the hierarchy of the Judicial system, it is always expected that a particular tier of the
judiciary may commit a mistake, decide the matter befora it wrongly, therefore, the well established principles are laid down even in the procedural
law where a person aggrieved of an order passed by the subordinate court has a right to move to a higher court by way of appeal, by way of
revisions. Mr. Qureshi further submits that although there is a presumption of law that every court shall pass an o'rder or judgment which will be
legal and fair, almost every judgment is either appealable or revisable. The creation of tier system of courts itself is a preemption that courts can
commit mistakes.
I have gone through the record of the case. The order passed by the learned sub-Judge is obviously to be taken as in-correct because High
Court has already quashed that order. It is also a fact that in the system of judiciary, mistakes are expected. Day in and day out we are hearing
appeals and revisions against the orders passed by the Presiding Officers of the Subordinate Judiciary and in hundreds of cases the judgments and
orders, passed by the subordinate courts are revised or modified. Even this Court is not the final court and day-in and day out judgments passed
by the single Judges of the High Courts are reversed by the Division Benches of the same Court in Letters Patents and the judgments of this Court
are revised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In our system of judiciary there is only one Court in the country i.e. Supreme Court, the
decisions of which are final.
Judges of the Subordinate Courts must be free to decide the matters in accordnce with procedure and law. If they are afraid of getting adverse
remarks from the High Court in case revision or appeal is filed, it will be'a reason for the Judges of the Subordinate Judiciary either not to work or
to work with lock of confidence.
Mr. Qureshi has produced a judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1994 SLJ 475. delivered in SLP (CRL) No. 2081-82 of 1993 in case
titled K. P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In this case the Addl. Sessions Judge granted bail to certain accused persons who were charged
for offences Under Sections 147 148 149 506 341 and 302 IPC. The High Court cancelled the bail and while cancelling the bail, High Court
made following observations about the learned Sessions Judge (at Page 1032 of AIR):--
The fact that the final grant was made without hearing the State Govt. and without verifying the fact, points to the interestedness of Shri K. P.
Tiwari, learned First Addl. Sessions Judge in the non-applicants. Indeed this interestedness is apparent in all the five cases. The impression that one
gets is that Shri K. P. Tiwari, First A.D.J. has been won ever by the non-applicants and therefore was open to write any judgment, or order,
releasing non-applicants on bail. It is therefore a case where the non-applicant (SIC) not only have shown disregard to law and the judicial process
but are reasonable suspected of exercising corrupt influence over Shri K. P. Tiwari, the First A. S. J. This Court has necessarily to recall such
orders.
.....
Indeed, it (court) will be failing in its duty if it accepts corrupting influence of the non-applicants (SIC) and permits illegal orders to remain
effective.
The Supreme Court although found that that there was no case in favour of the persons released on bail but did not approve the remarks made by
the High Court about the Additional Sessions Judge.
Therefore, seeing the judgment passed by this Court in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find that this court has also a right
to correct itself. The remarks against the Judicial Officer should not have been made.
I would have been happy if this matter had been decided by my esteemed colleague, Hon'ble Justice Gupta, who had earlier passed the order.
But his Lordship was transferred from this Court to Calcutta after this application was made by the Judicial Officer and I can say with confidence
that his Lordship would have also corrected the mistake. This I am saying on two reasons; one because I had the privilege of working with him for
a long time and his Lordship has always been open minded. The second reason being that this application has been entertained by his Lordship on
26-11-95 and his Lordship has already stayed certain portions of the order effecting the applicant.
For these reasons, I allow this application, expunge the remarks made against the present applicant and also withdraw the directions given to
the Additional Registrar and Registrar of this Court.
With these observations this application is allowed. Application allowed.