1. The applicant, who is a serving Judicial Officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services, has filed the present applications for modification of the judgment dated 25.04.2016 passed in RFA 69/2016, judgment dated 05.05.2016 passed in RFA 76/2016, order dated 16.05.2016 passed in RFA 851/2015 and the order dated 10.05.2016 in RFA 304/2016, passed by the Bench presided over by Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J and for seeking expungement of certain observations made therein, specifically relating to her.
2. These applications were listed before Siddharth Mridul, J, the predecessor Bench on the same roster on 15.09.2016. The applicant had appeared in person on the said date and had sought modification of the aforesaid orders to a limited extent as set out in para 3 of the applications, which was reproduced in the order dated 15.09.2016, and is also being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "3. That despite the fact that the Hon''ble Appellate Court failed to notice that the issue in appeal related to the conduct of the parties in trying to secure a favourable order from the District Court by concealing the litigations pending before the Delhi High Court relating to the same property and restrain orders passed therein, the applicant makes it clear that she is neither concerned with the justifiability or legality of the orders passed, nor with the merits of the case before the appellate court. The observations/comments in question as detailed below being totally unwarranted and indubitably effecting the self esteem and career of the applicant, a member of the District Judiciary, she accordingly seeks the expurgation/deletion of the same. The details of the cases/Regular First Appeals wherein these observations/comments have been made are detailed as under:-
| Sr. No | Details of the case/order | Status | Comments made by the High Court |
| 1. | RFA No.304/2016, CM No.17596/2016 and 17597/2016 under the title "TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Rajesh Mittal &Anr." decided on 10.05.2016 | Pending before this Court for 21.10.2016 | Para 13 "A copy of the impugned judgment and decree along with a copy of this order be placed before the Committee of theInspecting Judges of the learned ADJ ......" (Page 3 para 13 of the order) |
| 2. | RFA No.851/2015 and CM No.30785/2015 under the title "Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Delhi Auto General Finance PVT. Ltd." decided on 16.05.2016 (Annexure-A) | Pending before this Court for 09.11.2016 | Para 4 ".... A copy of the impugned judgment along with a copy of this order be placed before the Committee of the Inspecting Judges of this Court of the learned Additional District Judges...." |
| 3. | RFA No.76/2016 and RFA No.79/2016 under the title "Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs. Rajneesh Gupta & Ors." decided on 05.05.2016. | Disposed of by this Court on 05.05.2016 | A copy of the impugned judgments and decrees along with the copy of this order be placed before the Committee of the Inspecting Judges of the learned Additional District Judge ..... (Page 10, Last Page of Judgment, comments made after the judgment) |
| 4. | RFA No.69/2016, CM No.4972/2016 and CM No.4973/2016 under the title "Meena Kumari vs. Rajinder Kumar & Anr." decided on 25.04.2016. | Disposed of by this Court on 25.04.2016 | Para 14 "..... A copy of this judgment be also placed before the Committee of the Inspecting Judges of the Additional District Judge......"(Page 4 Para 14 of the Judgment, comments made at the end of the judgment.) |
3. On examining the extracted paragraphs, the predecessor Bench had observed that it was not considered just, proper or expedient to issue notice to the parties in the appeals for considering the relief prayed for in the said applications. With these observations, the applications were adjourned to 27.10.2016. On 27.10.2016, while directing that the aforesaid orders insofar they relate to the applicant shall not be given effect to till the next date, this court had directed that the said applications shall be taken up on 18.11.2016. On 18.11.2016, the matters were adjourned for today. In the meantime, vide order dated 28.11.2016 passed in RFA 304/2016, Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on the legal aspect raised by the applicant and the Registry was directed to furnish copies of the applications to her.
4. As noted above, the applicant is a serving Judicial Officer for the past 24 years and is aggrieved by the observations relating to her made in the four orders referred to in para 2 above on the ground that the same are totally unwarranted and they not only affect her self-esteem and judicial reputation, but also violate the norms of judicial propriety. She requests that they ought to be expunged.
5. At the outset, this Court had expressed its reservations about taking up the applications and had opined that they ought to be placed before the same Bench that had passed the orders in question. As a result, the applicant and the learned Amicus Curiae were requested to commence arguments by first addressing this Court on the propriety of entertaining the present applications, instead of placing them for orders before the concerned Bench.
6. Ms. Zubeda Begum, learned Amicus Curiae, on instructions from the applicant, had sought to clarify that while deciding these applications, this Court would not be required to go into the merits of the case and therefore, they should not be treated as applications for review, but simply as applications for seeking recall and expungement of the observations made in the orders mentioned above qua the applicant. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court(Jodhpur Bench) in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1075/2011 entitled Sita Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Bal Kishan Arora vs. Civil Judge, Arora and Ors. reported as 2002 (2) AWC 1724.
7. On her part, the applicant had requested that the applications may not be placed before the concerned Bench that had passed the orders in question, by stating that she has a misgiving about the fairness of the treatment that may be meted out to her due to the nature of remarks directed against her.
8. On merits, it was submitted that the directions issued in the orders to the effect that a copy of the impugned judgments pronounced by the applicant be placed before her Committee of the Inspecting Judges, have not been made once, but consecutively on four separate occasions and are completely unwarranted. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of V.K. Jain vs. High Court of Delhi through R.G. and Ors. reported as (2008) 17 SCC 538 and Amar Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported as (2012) 6 SCC 491, to urge that the threat and fear of administrative action on every order of a subordinate court by the higher court in revision/appeal/writ tends to create a fear psychosis amongst the subordinate judges. It was canvassed that any such direction as have been issued in the present cases, that too without affording an opportunity to the judicial officer, amounts to penalising her. It was thus prayed that identical observations made successively in four different appeals where judgments have been pronounced by the applicant have been assailed, may be recalled and expunged.
9. Mr. Anil Sapra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in RFA 304/2016 had clarified that he was appearing as an officer of the Court only to assist it on the inherent nature of the present applications. He sought to draw a distinction between an application for review and an application for recall of an order by referring to the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The decision in the case of Bharat Singh vs. Firm Sheo Pershad Giani Ram and Ors. reported as AIR 1978 Delhi 122, where a Division Bench of this Court has held that a review application can only be filed by a party to the lis and not by a third party, was cited by him to state that in the present case, since the applicant being the author of the judgments impugned in the four appeals, is not a party to the lis, an application filed by her for seeking recall of the orders on the ground that she has been adversely affected, is maintainable before this court, being the successor roster Bench.
10. Technically speaking, the scope of a review application is distinct from a recall application. In a review application, the court is required to examine the merits of the case to decide as to whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record, whereas while passing an order of recall, the court does not necessarily have to go into the merits of the case. It is also not in dispute that as per the current roster assigned by Hon''ble the Chief Justice, this court is the successor Bench on the very same roster as was handled by the predecessor Bench that had passed the orders in question in RFA Nos. 69/2016, 76/2016, 304/2016 and 851/2015. Yet, in the fitness of things, this court is of the opinion that propriety demands that these applications be first placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for taking a view and for assignment to an appropriate Bench.
11. Accordingly, while refraining from expressing an opinion on the merits of the applications, the Registry is directed to place them before Hon''ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side, for appropriate orders. The interim order dated 27.10.2016 shall continue to operate, till the said applications are taken up for hearing by the appropriate Bench and orders passed.
