1 W.P. NO.2468.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2468 OF 2010 1. Mr. Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Age 67 years,Occupation C.A. R/0 13 GPO Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. 2. Mr. Vasudeo Revchand Bhojwani, Age 62 years Occupation Practice Income Tax, R/o 13 GPO Road, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER V E R S U S Javed Khudabux Kazi, Age 50 years Occupation Advocate, R/o 2506 Shaji Road,Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENT ... Mr.R.R.Mantri ,Advocate for Petitioners ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 28TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2] By this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 5th February, 2010 rendered by the District Judge, 2 W.P. NO.2468.10 Ahmednagar, on application (Exh.24) filed in the appeal (Reg. Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2007). The petitioners are original defendants. The respondent is original plaintiff. The suit filed by the respondent came to be decreed, therefore, the petitioners preferred the appeal. 3] The petitioners in the Appeal Memo made certain allegations/comments regarding approach of the trial Court as well as the manner in which impugned judgment was rendered. The respondent(Plaintiff) himself is an Advocate. The tenor of the averments made by the petitioners indicated that they were not in good taste. 4] The petitioners are already facing the action for contempt of the Court. They sought that the relevant remarks/comments about the approach of the trial Court should be deleted. The learned District Judge rejected their application on the ground that deletion of the remarks was likely to cause prejudice to the respondent in the context of the contempt proceedings. 5] Though served the respondent is absent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 3 W.P. NO.2468.10 6] The Court has ample power to delete, remove or otherwise do away with any kind of pleading or averments which are prima facie scandalous or not in good taste. The amendment of such pleadings can be permitted by the Trial Court in conformity of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 6 or even under section 151 or under section 94(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The merits of the contempt proceedings would not depend on removal of averments from the Appeal Memo. The learned Judge could have imposed reasonable costs while allowing the application, so as to ensure that the aspirations in any similar case be not levelled against the trial court or the Advocate. In any case, such unnecessary averments in the Appeal Memo could be removed suo-moto and particularly when the petitioners themselves were ready and willing to get the same removed, may be after being required to face the contempt proceeding. 7] In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside on following terms: (i) The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.2000/- in the proceedings before the learned District Judge to the respondent. 4 W.P. NO.2468.10 (ii) The removal of the relevant portion from the Appeal Memo shall be effected without any prejudice to the rights of the parties, in the context of contempt proceeding. (iii) The Court dealing with contempt proceeding shall not be influenced by any of the observation made hereinabove. The rule made absolute in above terms. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK 5 W.P. NO.2468.10