Sekhar Singh Papola vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

S.K. Mishra, J

It is brought to our notice that private respondent nos. 7 and 8 never appeared before the learned Single Judge.

In advancing the arguments in this case, Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. D.K. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, would argue that the appellant, at present, shall confine his prayer only to expunge the adverse remarks passed by the learned Single Judge against him and imposition of cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh against the appellant.

We have carefully examined the records. In our opinion, the adverse remarks recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 16 at page no. 20 (internal page no. 11 of the impugned judgment) are not warranted, and as Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel, submits there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the appellant to bring certain facts to the knowledge of the Court, the Court has passed this order.

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the present Special Appeal in part.

Accordingly, sub-paragraph no. 6 of paragraph no. 16 the impugned judgment is, hereby, deleted or expunged. With regard to the imposition of cost of Rs.1.00 lakh, the same is also set-aside.

With such observations, the present Special Appeal is partly allowed.

In sequel thereto, all pending applications stand disposed of.

There shall be no orders as to cost.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.