IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1040 OF 2009 Durgadas Balmukund Acharya ...Petitioner V/s. Dattakumar Parshuram Acharya & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.B.G.Vaidya for Petitioner as amicus curiae. Petitioner is present in Court. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 4, 2009. MARCH 4, 2009. MARCH 4, 2009. P.C. 1. The Petitioner was appearing in-person. As he was not in a position to highlight his argument in the context of prayers made in the Petition and was not articulate, the Court thought it appropriate to provide him legal assistance. For that reason, Mr.Vaidya was requested to appear as amicus curiae. 2. Mr.Vaidya informs that the Petitioner during the interaction, has made allegations even : 2 : against him that he was not representing the correct facts to the Court. To assuage the apprehension of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was called upon to address the Court and confine his argument to the prayer clause in the Petition. 3. According to him, in substance, the challenge is to order passed in Appeal No.60 of 2006. In the context of the said order dated 27th August 2008, the only prayer clause that can be of some relevance is prayer clause (d) where the Petitioner merely prays for expunging the derogatory or disparaging remarks made against him by the Appellate Court. 4. On reading Paragraph 11 of the Judgment of the Appellate Court dated 27th August 2008, it is obvious that the Petitioner who appears in person, has abused his position by making wild allegations against the Presiding Officers. That cannot be countenanced. The fact stated in Paragraph 11 will have to be accepted as it is being record of the Court. If the facts so stated are not acceptable to the Petitioner, the only course open to him is : 3 : to go back before the same Court and apply for appropriate relief in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra v. State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak reported in AIR 1982 SC Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak reported in AIR 1982 SC Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249 1249 1249. In my opinion, the grievance of the Petitioner is totally misplaced. 5. Insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the question of directing the Trial Court to record evidence properly does not arise as no specific instance is pointed out as to how and in what manner incorrect or false recording of evidence has proceeded. Assuming that the Petitioner has any grievance regarding the same, the appropriate course is to apply to the same Court for correction of the record. In any case, no general direction as prayed by the Petitioner can be given to the lower Court as is prayed. 6. Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, in my order dated 9th February 2009, I have already observed that the order challenged in the said prayer clause is an appellable order and the Petitioner if so advised, may take recourse to that : 4 : remedy. 7. Prayer clause (c) of the Petition is a benign prayer which is of no consequence. The Petitioner prays that he may be allowed to conduct the proceedings in all four Suits. No order has been brought to my notice where the Petitioner’s appearance has been prohibited by any Court. He has appeared as Constituted Attorney for his father as well as in-person for himself. Accordingly, there is no substance in this Petition. The same is dismissed. 8. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Advocate General to consider taking appropriate action against the Petitioner as may be advised including under the provisions of Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation & Prevention Act, 1971. 9. Court expresses word of gratitude for Mr.Vaidya who appeared as amicus curiae at the request of the Court. : 5 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.