M.L. Joshi, J. - (1.) This is to dispose of an application under Sec. 151 C.P.C. of one Shri Ugamsee Modi for expunging the remarks from the judgment of the learned Civil Judge Jalore dated 20th of January 1972. The brief facts giving rise to this application are as follows. The plaintiff applicant Ugamsee Modi brought a suit against the defendant opposite party for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 520/ - made up of Rs. 500/ - principal and Rs. 20/ - interest on the allegation that the opposite party had borrowed from the applicant a sum of Rs. 500/ -. The defendant opposite party denied that he ever borrowed any sum from the plaintiff applicant, and inter alia pleaded that suit against him was brought with an ulterior motive to extort money under pressure. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff Jalore. On appeal the learned Civil Judge while dismissing it made disparaging remarks against the plaintiff applicant who is an Advocate as follows: - - "This case has in it certain features which smack savoury and the fine name of noble profession of an Advocate is likely to run down in the estimation of the people if a matter like this be not reported to the State Bar Council for further enquiry and probe as it may deem fit. In order to sustain respect in the minds of public about the profession of an Advocate and to uphold its best traditions a reference is perfectly well warranted, accordingly, let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the President of State Bar Council of Rajasthan at Jodhpur for information." It is these remarks which the plaintiff applicant seeks to get them expunged on the ground that they were wholly uncalled for.
(2.) I is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff -applicant that the remarks in question were wholly unjustified and were not at all necessary for the decision of the case in a judicial manner. Reliance has been placed upon State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Naim : AIR 1964 SC 703. I have heard the learned council for the parties and have gone through the record. The suit was merely a suit for recovery of the money. Both the Courts below found against the plaintiff -applicant mainly on the ground that there were some discrepancies in respect of the date of the advancement of loan. The appellate court further observed that it appears that the defendant -opposite party had held consultation with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff -applicant had brought the suit to realise money for the consultation held by the defendant with him. There is, however, no positive evidence on this score. The appellate court has only said that the revision of the defendant appears to be probable. Now the question before the Courts below was whether Rs. 500/ - were advanced by the plaintiff applicant or not. The conduct of the plaintiff was in no way in dispute or relevant. In this connection it will be useful to extract the relevant observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Naim : AIR 1964 SC 703. Their Lordships have observed that - - "It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Courts of law in cases to be decided by them; it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remark; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." The last factor mentioned in clause (c) is specially to be noted as it has got great relevance to the question arising before me. Judging in this light it has to be seen whether it was necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on the conduct of the plaintiff -applicant. It has further to be noticed that whether the pronouncement of the learned Civil judge is of judicial nature when he had made some disparaging remarks against the plaintiff who is an Advocate. Having gone through the record and the relevant evidence I am clearly of the opinion that it was not necessary to adjudicate upon the conduct of the plaintiff applicant for a correct decision of the case. The only question which was before the appellate court was whether the plaintiff -applicant has proved the loan advanced to the defendant. It was not necessary to adjudicate upon the conduct of the plaintiff applicant and consequently there was no justification for making disparaging remarks against him. In this view of the matter, the disparaging remarks made by the learned Civil Judge, Balotra (camp Court at Jalore) deserve to be expunged and they are expunged. There shall be no order as to costs.;