DWARKA PRASAD, J. -
(1.)I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharat Chandra Aditya, the then Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City. The petitioner Sampat Raj Mehta is an Advocate practising at Sojat City. He was representing the plaintiff in a civil suit, Khuma Ram vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation and another, pending in the court of Munsif, Sojat City. Along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 C. P. C. and prayed that a temporary injunction may be granted against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the use of the right of way of the plaintiff. Certified copies of sale-deeds were produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim. A rough site plan prepared by the plaintiff was also produced in support of plaintiff's case The learned Munsif granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction on July 14, 1982. But when the matter came before him for passing final order on the application for temporary injunction, it was discovered that the plaintiff had not produced the site plans which constituted part of the sale-deeds. The learned Munsif. Mr. Aditya vacated the temporary injunction granted by his order dated October 7,1982. While vacating the ad interim temporary injunction, the learned Munsif observed as under:- "the court was misled to believe that the Registrar did not give the copies of the maps which formed parts of the sale-deeds, but when the defendants came out with the certified copies along with the maps, this concealment was exposed. I am constrained to remark that the applicants have not come before the Court with clean hands". (A)
(2.)IT was further observed by the learned Munsif in the aforesaid order as under:- "from all this I think there is an irresistible conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicants has deliberately mislead the courts. He has misled the court in filing the sale-deed and hiding the relevant map. He has misled the court in filing a false blue print Such a conduct on the part of a counsel cannot be approved. A learned counsel is to help a court of law to arrive at the truth and not to mislead it. A counsel doing contrary to this canon does not serve himself or his client well. Moreover he misconducts himself to say the least. " (B) Then in the operative part of the order, the learned Munsif observed as under:- "it is also expected that the learned counsel for the applicants shall conduct himself more reliably in future. " (C) Learned counsel Mr. Sampat Raj Mehta has moved this Court that the observations made by the learned Munsif against him should be expunged on the ground that those observations were wholly unwarranted. IT was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner as a counsel produced those documents in the court which were supplied to him by his client and pleaded according to the instructions of the plaintiff and that his conduct was bonafide, as such the remarks made by the learned Munsif against the counsel personally are wholly unjustified.
So far as the first observation quoted above (marked 'a'), no exception can be taken, inasmuch as it refers to the conduct of the plaintiff-applicant before the learned Munsif and if incomplete copies of the sale-deeds were produced, learned Munsif was justified in observing that the plaintiff-applicant did not come with clean hands and has tried to misled the court. But so far as other two observations quoted above (marked B and C) are concerned, which relate to the conduct of the counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Sampat Raj Mehta Advocate, who is petitioner before this Court, they were made apparently without any justification. There is nothing on the record of the case or the reply filed by Mr. Aditya to sow that the counsel appearing for the plaintiff had deliberately tried to misled the court or that he had knowingly withheld the production of the site plan along with the sale-deed. Such a conclusion have been arrived at by the learned Munsif only in case there would have been some material on the record to show that the plaintiff had supplied the sale-deeds along with the site plans to his counsel but the counsel had malafide refrained from producing the same before the court and with some extraneous motive had produced only the sale-deed withholding the production of the site plan. Even the reply filed by Mr. Aditya does not show that any thing had come to his knowledge which led him to arrive at the conclusion at which the Munsif had reached regarding the conduct of the counsel Shri Sampatraj Advocate, more particularly when the counsel stated that he had acted bonafide in accordance with the instructions of his client and produced such documents which were supplied to him by his client, the plaintiff in the suit. If the plaintiff supplied incomplete documents to his counsel there was no fault of the counsel. It is true that it did not occur to the counsel that a plan or map might have accompanied the sale-deed, but it may be observed that it also did not occur to the learned Munsif while passing the ex parte ad interim temporary injunction. The blue prints which were filed by Mr. Mehta, Advocate in the trial court were those which were supplied to him by (he plaintiff. Thus there was no justification for observing that the counsel Shri Sampat Raj has deliberately misled the court or he had misconducted himself. In my view the observations made by the learned Munsif are without any foundation and are not in good taste. Judicial officers are expected to conduct themselves with dignity, not only in the proceedings in the court, but they are also expected to be reasonable, objective and polite in their judgments and orders. They are required to be all the more cautious and unbiased when they embark upon making observations about the conduct of a brother judicial officer or a lawyer, who is as much an officer of the court as the Presiding Officer himself. The fact that a lawyer has to make his submissions before a court of law and thereby assist the court in the dispensation of justice does not mean that he should be left at the mercy of the Presiding Officer of the court, who may feel free to make whatever observations he may like in respect of the counsel. A judge is not entitled to make any observations about the conduct of a counsel appearing before him, in a casual or light hearted manner. Both, the counsel arguing a case as well as a Judge deciding the case form part of the machinery envisaged by law for proper dispensation of Justice. Before making and observations about the conduct of a counsel in a judgment or an order the judge must make sure that there is ample and just foundation for making such observations. In the absence thereof, the conduct of a counsel should not be criticised in a light hearted manner.
A Judge should be austere and restrained in his language, impartial in his temperament, soft in his speech and assiduous in his duties. Integrity, impartiality and total absence of bias or attachment are the essential virtues of a Judge. It must be emphasised that judicial pronouncements must be couched to rather dignified and respectful language, even while referring to inferior or subordinate courts. Though disagreement may be expressed firmly, freely and without fear, yet it should not exhibit any lack of decency. The Code of Conduct, which should invariably be adhered to by persons adorning high judicial offices, includes the maintenance of high traditions and the expression of mutual respect, tolerance, and proper appreciation of the point of view of the other officer of the court, may he be a lawyer or a judicial officer of a subordinate or equal rank.
There is nothing on the record in the present case to show that the counsel Shri Sampat Raj had not conducted himself properly and there was no reason to doubt his bonafides and so to cast aspersions on his conduct or make harsh observations in respect thereof was without any foundation and, therefore, uncalled for. I am, therefore, of the view that the observations (B) and (C) quoted above relating to the conduct of the counsel should be expunged from the impugned order in Civil Misc. Case No. 21/82 Khuma Ram vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, as they were made without any justification.
The petition is accordingly allowed and as directed above, the observations marked (B) and (C) above are expunged from the order passed, by the learned Munsif, Sojat City, Shri Aditya on October 7, 1982 (Khuma Ram vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation ). .