1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6462/2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4227/2006 (Decided) Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority and another ...Versus... Shri Mahesh Jaggumal Sacchani and others Applicant : Shyam s/o Late Shri Dayaram Dewani -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.P. Dharmadhikar, Adv. for applicant] [Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Adv. for petitioners] [Shri R.R. Shrivastav, Adv. for respdt. Nos.1 to 3] [Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for respdt. No.5] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 04.08.2008 This civil application for expunging remarks has been taken out by applicant – Advocate Shri S.D. Dewani. Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari for the applicant in support of the application argued that there are offending remarks against his client Mr. S.D. Dewani, Advocate and Mr. B.G. Kulkarni Advocate in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 of the judgment dated 4.8.2007 in Writ Petition No.4227/2006, made by this Court and these remarks were made without the applicant being noticed and heard and on this ground alone these remarks are 2 liable to be withdrawn. He relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court. Per contra, Advocate Shri Parsodkar for the original petitioners opposed the application and argued that since now Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the said judgment, dated 4.8.2001, same request can be made before appellate Court. He further argued that at any rate the judgment is based on one of the said reasons and hence the application deserves dismissal. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the Counsel, I find that the fact that no notice was issued to the applicant and Advocate Shri B.G. Kulkarni is not in dispute. The observations in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 of the judgment which are being objected to are as under : “On the contrary, there appears to be utter haste on the part of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 i.e. petitioners and their counsel and witness Chandrashekhar Dhande.” “From perusal of the unrebutted averments in the petition, which I have quoted hereinbefore, the manner in which pursis was filed jointly by counsel for plaintiffs and defendant No.2.” 3 From the reading of the above, I do not feel that there are any remarks which can be termed as 'offending'. But then fact remains that whatever is said with reference to Counsel for both plaintiffs and defendant in these paragraphs is without affording an opportunity of hearing to both of them. That is in violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no need to refer to any of the decisions cited by Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari for this proposition. Not accepting the submissions made by Advocate Shri Parsodkar, I hold that those observations against applicant and Mr. B.G. Kulkarni cannot be said to be one of the basis reasons in support of the said judgment. In fact, these observations were not pre-eminently essential to adjudicate the proceedings. Filing of Letters Patent Appeal has nothing to do with this application. Therefore, without disturbing the final order, the observations in above paragraph Nos.17 and 18 only with reference to Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are ordered to be expunged and directed to be removed from record. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE ssw