SAMPAT RAJ Vs. SHARAT CHANDRA ADITYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharat Chandra Aditya, the then Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City. The petitioner Sampat Raj Mehta is an Advocate practising at Sojat City. He was representing the plaintiff in a civil suit, Khuma Ram vs. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation and another, pending in the court of Munsif, Sojat City. Along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 C. P. C. and prayed that a temporary injunction may be granted against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the use of the right of way of the plaintiff. Certified copies of sale-deeds were produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim. A rough site plan prepared by the plaintiff was also produced in support of plaintiff's case The learned Munsif granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction on July 14, 1982. But when the matter came before him for passing final order on the application for temporary injunction, it was discovered that the plaintiff had not produced the site plans which constituted part of the sale-deeds. The learned Munsif. Mr. Aditya vacated the temporary injunction granted by his order dated October 7,1982. While vacating the ad interim temporary injunction, the learned Munsif observed as under:- "the court was misled to believe that the Registrar did not give the copies of the maps which formed parts of the sale-deeds, but when the defendants came out with the certified copies along with the maps, this concealment was exposed. I am constrained to remark that the applicants have not come before the Court with clean hands". (A)

(2.) IT was further observed by the learned Munsif in the aforesaid order as under:- "from all this I think there is an irresistible conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicants has deliberately mislead the courts. He has misled the court in filing the sale-deed and hiding the relevant map. He has misled the court in filing a false blue print Such a conduct on the part of a counsel cannot be approved. A learned counsel is to help a court of law to arrive at the truth and not to mislead it. A counsel doing contrary to this canon does not serve himself or his client well. Moreover he misconducts himself to say the least. " (B) Then in the operative part of the order, the learned Munsif observed as under:- "it is also expected that the learned counsel for the applicants shall conduct himself more reliably in future. " (C) Learned counsel Mr. Sampat Raj Mehta has moved this Court that the observations made by the learned Munsif against him should be expunged on the ground that those observations were wholly unwarranted. IT was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner as a counsel produced those documents in the court which were supplied to him by his client and pleaded according to the instructions of the plaintiff and that his conduct was bonafide, as such the remarks made by the learned Munsif against the counsel personally are wholly unjustified.