IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.38 of 1997 Date of decision:08.05.2008 Smt.Savitri Devi & Ors. ….Appellants Versus Smt.Burfi Devi & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellants: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior No.1(a) to 1(e): Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal was admitted on a short question that the trial Judge was nephew of the appellate Judge. The order dated 29.9.1997 reads:- “29.9.1997 Present: Shri R.K. Sharma, Counsel for the appellant. Heard. One of the grounds taken in this appeal is that the suit was decided by Shri M.K. Bansal, Sub-Judge, Ist Class (II), Hamirpur and the appeal against his judgment should not have 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 been heard by Ms.Kiran Aggarwal, District Judge, Hamirpur. The reason for this is that admittedly Shri M.K. Bansal is the nephew of Ms.Kiran Aggarwal. Apart from the above ground which cuts at the very root of judicial propriety as well as the dictum that justice should not only be done, but must appear to have been done, there are other substantial questions of law involved in this appeal, as framed in the memorandum of the appeal. Admit. Notice to the respondents for 5th December, 1997.” It is undisputed before me that the trial Judge is the nephew related by blood to the appellate Judge. It is by now well settled that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. In State of W.B.and Others vs. Shivananda Pathak and Others, (1998)5 SCC 513, the Supreme Court has held: “23. All judicial functionaries have necessarily to have an unflinching character to decide a case with an unbiased mind. Judicial proceedings are held in open court to ensure transparency. Access to judicial record by way of inspection by the litigant or his lawyer and the facility of providing certified copies of that record are factors which not only ensure transparency but also instill 3 and inspire confidence in the impartiality of the court proceedings”. Surely, the appellate Judge was not acting in consonance with law and re-enforcing the belief of the public at large in the fairness of the judicial process. In the circumstances, this appeal is accepted, the judgment and decree in appeal is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, to dispose of the matter on or before 31st December, 2008. No adjournment shall be asked for or granted unless it is absolutely imperative. Parties shall appear before the learned District Judge on 6th June, 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. May 8, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.