M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This Civil Revision filed on behalf of Shri Ishwar Swaroop and Shri P.K. Garg. Advocates of Jagadhri seeks expunging of adverse remarks made by the then Sub Judge. Jagadhri. While deciding the suit which was registered as Civil Suit No. 490 of 1983 titled Rulia Ram v/s. Rattan Lal on 20.11.1991 some adverse remarks were made against the counsel representing the defendant with a prayer that these adverse remarks be expunged and deleted from the various paras of the judgment the present revision petition has been filed. The adverse remarks recorded on 20.11.1991 read as under: "Learned counsel for the defendant has refused to address arguments on the ground that an application for transfer of this case from this court to another court is pending in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Ambala. I do not find any logic in the aforesaid refusal of the learned counsel for the defendant. Keeping in view his mischievous mala fide, and wilful conduct to delay the proceedings of this case which is one of the oldest pending cases in this Court being pertaining to the year 1983. The detailed discussions qua the transfer application plea of the learned counsel for the defendant has been made by this Court vide its separate order of even date wherein the two applications filed by the applicant/defendant for framing additional issue and for amendment of written statement had been dismissed with the cost of Rs. 100/ - each for the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the aforesaid separate order is reproduced herein below: "So far as the contention of learned counsel for the defendant is concerned that the transfer application for the transfer of this case is still pending in the court of learned District and sessions Judge, Ambala, the same is not only absolutely meritless but mischievous and mala fide also because learned counsel for the defendant had informed this Court on 4.6.91 that he had already moved an application for transfer of this case when last opportunity to the defendant for leading defence evidence after giving him as many as two opportunities had already been ordered. Considering the request of learned counsel for the defendant, this Court granted as many as 5 adjournments in the interest of justice to enable the applicant/defendant to get this case transferred but since the defendant had filed the transfer application with mala fide intention to delay the proceedings of this case which being pertaining to the year 1983 was one of the oldest pending cases, so this Court could not afford to give further unnecessary adjournment after waiting for four months that too without any stay order from the appellate court. The case was again fixed for defendant's evidence on 28.10.91 vide order dated 14.10.91. It was also stipulated vide order dated 14.10.91 that if the defendant was able to place any stay order as alleged by him, from the court of learned Distt. Judge, Ambala, he was free to do so till 28.10.91 but the defendant -instead of obtaining and placing on record any stay order from the Court of learned District Judge, Ambala started examining his DWs. So he now cannot take the plea that the application filed by the defendant for transfer of this case was still under consideration in the court of learned Distt. Judge, Ambala. The non placing of any stay order as to the existence of which had been alleged by the learned counsel for the defendant Sh. P.K. Garg by making a statement at bar to this effect, compelled this court to draw an adverse inference that no such stay order was in existence. Even then vide order dated 14.10.91, the defendant was given yet an another opportunity to file the alleged said order on record on or before 28.10.91. These facts have been narrated vide detailed interim order of this court dated 14.10.91 which is on the judicial file as part and parcel of the order -sheet of the present case. Thus the aforesaid conduct of the defendant and his learned counsel clearly shows that the defendant not only tried to play hide and seek with this Court but also kept this court in dark about the existence of stay order from the appellate court which in fact was non -est and that too by the learned counsel for the defendant by making a statement to this effect in the court at bar. That the defendant wanted to prolong the proceedings of the case on frivolous ground, is clear from the fact that the defendant had also filed an application under Sec. 10 CPC for staying the proceedings of the present case which was dismissed by this court on merits with cost of Rs. 100/ - vide order dated 25.4.91 with the warning to the defendant to desist from filing such type of frivolous applications in future. The defendant did not choose to go in an appeal against the said order dated 25.4.91. The non filing of appeal against said order dated 25.4.91 vide which the application of the defendant had been dismissed with warning and cost of Rs. 100/ - clearly shows that the defendant had filed the aforesaid application just to delay the proceedings of the case. Had it not been so the defendant must have had gone in appeal. Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that the present two applications have again been filed by the applicant -defendant with mala fide intentions to delay the proceedings of this case. Thus in view of my aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession of the suit land. I, therefore, decide this issue in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. XX XXX XX XX Learned counsel for the defendant as has been discussed above has declined to address arguments on false and frivolous grounds with mala fide intentions to prolong the proceedings of this case. It is worthwhile to mention that the defendants have also failed to place any cogent evidence on record to prove the aforesaid two issues. I, therefore, decide these two issues against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff."
(2.) At the outset a request has been made by Shri C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners for deletion of the name of respondent No. 3. I accept his request and order the striking of the name of respondent No. 3 from the array of parties. In view of the deletion of name of respondent No. 3. the Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.
(3.) Shri C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no notice before recording the adverse remarks was served on the petitioners. The remarks against the petitioners are patently against the principles of audi alteram partem. He further submits that the remarks are even without jurisdiction because any disciplinary action could be competent only before the Bar Council under the provisions of the advocates Act, 1961. His further contention is that on facts also these remarks are unwarranted. Another submission made by Shri C.B. Goel is that on appeal against the judgment of the Sub Judge Ist Class dated 20.11.1991, the learned Additional District Judge while reversing the view of the learned Sub Judge has recorded his disapproval to the adverse remarks in the following words: "Then a perusal of the judgment also shows that the ld. Sub Judge, has passed undesirable and unwarranted remarks against the counsel if he was seeking adjournments on the ground that transfer application was moved." Shri Anil Khetarpal, advocate, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 does not have serious argument to counter the argument of Shri C.B. Goel. His only submission is that the learned Additional District Judge has commented on the remarks but has not expunged the same.;