Decided on August 10,1982

Natvarlal M Badiani Appellant
Jerambhai Amad Respondents


B.K.MEHTA - (1.)The comedy of inadvertent error is the real cause in this miscellaneous civil application moved by the petitioners herein who are respectively a practicing senior advocate in the district Court at Jamnagar and the courts subordinate thereto and his client who was original opponent of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 52 of 1981 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Judge Jamnagar filed by the wife of petitioner No. 2 for the custody of their child. In the said custody proceedings petitioner No. 2 moved the Court for raising preliminary issue about the competency of the main application. This he did by presenting an application to the Court on 13/11/1981 vide Ex. 27. The learned Assistant Judge by his order of 27/11/1981 rejected the said application and refused to raise the preliminary issue as prayed for. Petitioner No. 2 therefore moved the learned Assistant Judge for review of the said order on 22/12/1981 which was numbered as Review Application No. 6/81. Petitioner No. 2 was represented by petitioner No. 1 as his Advocate in the said review application. It is to admitted position that there were many typographical errors in the said application. One such error which has offended the learned Judge was just in the opening part after the cause title therein. The said review application opened with a prayer which read as under:
It is not in dispute that the junior Advocate of petitioner No. 1 corrected the errors in the said review application. Unfortunately however he missed to correct the aforesaid error in the opening part of the application. The review application came to be rejected by the order of the learned Assistant Judge of 25/02/1982 Before parting with the matter the learned Assistant Judge in paragraph 5 of his order observed as under:
" before parting with this matter I would like to make few observations about the behaviour of the applicant. because the order below his application Ex. 27 has gone against him. he has gone (and his advocate also) to the extent of committing contempt of this court by using words MAY IT PLEASE YOUR DISHONOR. In his application for review which has been filed by him and which has been drafted by his advocate he has made necessary corrections in his application Ex. I wherever there was mistake and or typographical error. When all other typographical errors have been corrected it is not possible to conclude or say that it might be the typographical error while using these words. Had it been so then certainly it could have been corrected when all other errors have been corrected. In typographical error there may be a mistake in spelling hut word DIS as a prefix of HONOUR would certainly not appear and/or would not be typed by mistake. Thus it seems that the word DIS as prefix of HONOUR has been intentionally used to abuse and insult and lower down the authorities of this Court"

(2.)The petitioners have therefore moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution read with sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for expunging and/or deleting from the order the aforesaid remarks.
(3.)When this matter was placed before me for admission by an order of 19/04/1982 liberty was given to the petitioners to move the learned Assistant Judge offering unconditional apology for the error which had remained uncorrected in the review application and the learned Assistant Judge was directed to report to this Court if he is satisfied about the bonafide of the petitioners that the said error was inadvertently overlooked while correcting the other typographical errors which report was to be submitted by 29/04/1982

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.