KANHAIYALAL Vs. MOHITKUMAR VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dr. Sharda, a medical practitioner, who has appeared as a witness in the Court of Shri Mohit Kumar Vyas, IInd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, in proceedings under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C., in Misc. Civil Case No. 6/88, has filed this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for expunging derogatory remarks passed in the order dated 7-2-1989.

(2.) At the outset, we want to make it clear that we are not concerned at all, with, the merits or demerits of the orders aforesaid and the controversy is cribbed and confined to the limited question- "Whether the learned Court was justified in making the impugned remarks; and if the answer is in the negative, to what extent the objectionable portions be expunged?" Any incidental observations by us, if any, be not construed as any expression of an opinion on the proceedings in Misc. Civil Case No. 6 of 1988.

(3.) The backdrop : Broadly stated, the non-applicants in Misc. Civil Case No. 6/88 had filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and possession against the applicant Prithipalsingh. The original Civil Suit was 67A/86, which was decreed ex parte on account of Prithipalsingh's absence on 24-9-88 and his counsel pleading no instructions. This occasioned application under O. 9, R. 13, C.P.C., in which the applicant alleged that prior to 24-9-88, he had gone to Delhi on a professional visit but fell ill, and was unable to undertake journey. In Delhi, he had taken treatment from one Dr. Gurmani; and thereafter, he undertook the journey back to Indore on 25-9-88 but again fell ill. Therefore, he went to Dr. Sharda at his reference, showed him the earlier prescription and the applicant advised further treatment. Thus, the advice on 26-9-88 for rest and treatment were subsequent to the treatment Prithipalsingh had in Delhi from Dr. Gurmani on 23/24-9-88.