SUKUMARAN POTTI Vs. MUNSIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an Advocate practicing in the Courts at kottarakkara. He was engaged by the plaintiffs in O. S. 153/87 and also 362/87 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara. Both these suits were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment dated 13-1-1993. In para. 27 of the judgment, while rejecting the contentions raised by the plaintiffs' counsel the munsiff observed: "the argument appears to be idiotic in as much as no male could be expected to make such a provision. Masculine psychology would never postulate such a benevolenc e. Psychology of illiterate and poor Sankaran was also not different". The petitioner has filed this original petition under art. 227 of the Constitution to enpunge the remarks made by the Munsiff to the effect that the argument appears to be 'idiotic'.

(2.) WHEN the original petition came up for admission I directed the office to get explanation of Munsiff and he has offered an explanation justifying his stand. The relevant portion of the explanation is to the following effect: "there is no reason for the petitioner to feel aggrieved of by the sentences used in the judgment. The expression "idiotic' was used in the judgment only to mean "irrational'. It has no other significance at all in that context. The word "idiotic' was never meant to defame, insult or annoy the petitioner in any way. What was intended while using the expression "idiotic' was to reject an argument which appeared to me as unwise or unintelligible or irrational".