MIHIR RANJAN PARIDA Vs. MENJA NAIK AND ORS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 4080 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 18, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4080 OF 2016
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8579 of 2016)


MIHIR RANJAN PARIDA                                                APPELLANT

                                VERSUS

MENJA NAIK AND ORS.                                              RESPONDENTS


                                  J U D G M E N T


      KURIAN, J.


      1.    Leave granted.

      2.    The limited prayer made by the appellant is  for  expunction  of
certain adverse observations made by the High Court  against  the  appellant
who is the  presiding Judge on the trial side.   When  the  matter  came  up
before this Court on 29th March, 2016,  this  Court  issued  notice  on  the
following terms:

       “Permission to file special leave petition is    granted.
   Issue notice.
   Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
Mr. Raju Ramachandran,  learned  senior  counsel  submits  that  he  may  be
permitted to withdraw ground (D) of the petition.
 On request, the permission is granted.
The  limited  prayer  made  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  is  only  for
expunction of the adverse observations made by the High  Court  against  the
petitioner.  Since it is a matter of expunction, we deem it  appropriate  to
issue notice.
                                    - 2 -

However, we make it clear that in case respondents have  no  objection  with
regard to the limited prayer for  expunction  of  the  adverse  observations
made by the High Court against the petitioner, they are free not to  respond
to the notice as well.
Post on 18.04.2016.”


3.    It is seen that the notice has already been served on respondents  but
there is no appearance on their behalf.

4.    Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for  the  appellant,
we are of the view that the adverse observations made against the  appellant
are wholly unwarranted.  May be the Judge passed a  wrong  order;  but  that
does not mean that even wrong order should  be  visited  with  such  adverse
remarks.  All adverse remarks/observations against the  appellant  contained
in the impugned order are hence expunged.

4.    The appeal is allowed.

                                                            ...............J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]



                                                            ...............J.
                                                              [R. BANUMATHI]

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 18, 2016