SURENDRA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. RAMAWATI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant, a judicial officer, was holding the post of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at the relevant time. A claim petition was filed before him in which vakalatnama was filed by two counsel Mr. R.M. Singh and Mr. D.K. Saxena. The matter was settled between the claimant and the Insurance Company and the settlement petition was filed and signed by Mr. D.K. Saxena. At that time, Mr. R.M. Singh raised an objection that his fees had not been paid and that the compromise should not be recorded. The appellant herein accepted the request of Mr. R.M. Singh and held that the compromise petition could only be filed through Mr. R.M. Singh and not by Mr. D.K. Saxena. He came to the conclusion that since vakalatnama bears a sum of Rs.10/- for the Advocates Welfare Fund, one lawyer can only be authorized and not more. Signature Not Verified This order was challenged.

(3.) This Court in a number of cases has cautioned that remarks against judicial officers should normally not be passed in judgments. We follow a system where the judgment of a Court is subject to judicial scrutiny by Higher Courts. The judgment may be right or wrong, but the Higher Courts should not pass scathing remarks against the presiding officer of the lower courts only because they do not agree with the point of view of the Trial Court.