1 W.P.5812.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5812 OF 2010 Ramsukh S/o Gopulal Jethaliya, Age : 66 Years, Occup.: Advocate. R/o Majalgaon, District Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. Shri G.S.Shegaonkar, Hon'ble Civil Judge Sr. Divn. Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.B.Mantri,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri C.K.Shinde,Advocate for Respondents No.1&2 Shri S.K.Tambe,AGP. for Respondent No.3 ... CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,JJ. DATE : 24.07.2012. P.C.: . Perused “remark” sought to be expunged in present petition by the petitioner-advocate. Those remarks at page no. 58, 59,67, 69, 71 and 76 of the record and contained in judgment dated 29.03.2010 in Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2004. 2 W.P.5812.10 2. Advocate Mr. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 has fairly stated petitioner - advocate did not represent the plaintiffs in that suit at any point of time. However, what is presented before this Court as ”remarks” cannot be viewed as 'remarks' and those are findings recorded by the trial Court and its perusal shows that same is based upon some material. Whether findings are perverse and its appreciation is in accordance with law or not, is the question which can be gone into in Regular Civil Appeal by the Appellate Court. If position accepted by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 is correct, the appellate Court can definitely delete those "remarks" and then find out whether other findings reached by the trial Court are because of those "remarks" or observations and need any modification or change. 3. Advocate Mr. Mantri appearing for the petitioner at this stage states that Regular Civil Appeal is already decided and appellate Court has 3 W.P.5812.10 not deleted those "remarks". The judgment delivered by the Appellate Court can be appropriately questioned by the present petitioner in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner before this Court was/is defendant no.6 in that suit. Original plaintiffs are not parties before this Court. The situation above does not permit us to expunge findings regarded as ”remarks”. 5. Hence, without recording any findings on correctness of those remarks, and leaving the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedies as are available to him in law, we dispose of the petition. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,J.] [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.] MTK