JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. 1. It is one of those unfortunate cases which should have never come to the Court if the parties concerned had acted in the best traditions of judicial behaviour. 2. By means of this writ petition, certain remarks made by the appellate court while deciding a revision against the officer against whose judgment the revision had been filed are sought to be expunged. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the language used by the revisional court while disposing of the revision against his order contains aspersions and disparaging remarks against him with a view to humiliate him. The duty to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court lies not only on the parties appearing before the court or the Advocates appearing for them but also on the judicial officers who occupy presiding seats in the Court. It is one of the foremost principles of judicial behaviour that the judicial officer while discharging his duty must act with utmost self restraint and composure. It is expected of him that in no circumstance would he lose his temper and give vent to such feelings either by spoken word or in writing in judicial matters. The judicial tradition lays stress that in order to command respect, the judicial officers also must behave with respect and by their conduct in the court should create an atmosphere in which they command respect without demanding it. It is, therefore, necessary both for the subordinate court and the appellate court to be very careful in what they do in public and what they do in court while deciding cases. The words they write in their orders and judgments must not be extravagant and should be well balanced and limited to the controversy awaiting decision by the court. The appellate court, while deciding appeals and revisions must always be aware of the distinction which exists between the judgment which they are called upon to comment upon and the person whose judgment it was. The personality of the Judge writing the judgment should in no case come in for comment by the appellate court. The appellate court owes a duty to confine all its comments and criticisms to the record of the case and the line of reasoning in the judgment delivered by the court below. The personality of the Judge writing the judgment should in no case come in for comment by the appellate court. The appellate court owes a duty to confine all its comments and criticisms to the record of the case and the line of reasoning in the judgment delivered by the court below. The appellate court no doubt has a right to criticise the findings and the manner of dealing with a case by the trial court but this has to be done in a dignified manner and in a language which is sober and balanced. The language employed by it should not reflect even a trace of malice towards any of the parties or the officer who gave the judgment under consideration. The judicial officers must, therefore, observe necessary restraint in such matters and should avoid being dis-respectful in their observations either about the quality and reasoning employed in its judgment or order by the lower court, but do so in a sober, restraint and graceful manner. 3. As far back as in 1944, in Emperor v. Ganpati Sitaram Vaidya, AIR 1944 Nagpur 136 Pollock, J. made the following observations on this point which are even more relevant today : "I wish to make it clear that this court regards it as undesirable and improper for one Judge or Magistrate to criticise another in such unrestrained language. It is unfair to the Magistrate concerned as a public indictment of this sort tends to make his position as a Magistrate difficult and must affect adversely his ability to perform his magisterial duties. It also lowers the administration of justice in the, eyes of the public. A judgment is not the proper place for such structures and the Privy Council has before now reprobated much milder criticisms as unnecessary and adding nothing to the weight of the judgment." 4. The Supreme Court also had an occasion to deal with a similar matter in The State of U. P. v. Mohammad Nairn, AIR 1964 SC 703 and it observed as under : "It is principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice that the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by the Supreme Court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisation defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before the courts of law in the cases to be decided by them. It is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. " In pointing out the above observations, all I wish to do is to remind the judicial officers to act with self control and self discipline while making remarks in their judgments and orders either about the parties, their Advocates or even the officer whose judgment is under review before them. It is unfortunate that in the case before me certain remarks have been made which, in my opinion, were neither necessary nor required for the decision of the revision. If the revisional court disagreed with the view taken by the court below, it was fully entitled to reverse the findings and to allow the revision. But while doing so, it should have used language without making any disparaging remarks against the officer concerned. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the revisional court and I am satisfied that some paragraphs and portion of some others appearing in revisional court's order need to be expunged. Normally, the writ petition should not have been finally disposed off at the admission stage itself but I do not wish to foul the sanctity of the court by permitting two members of judicial fraternity to indulge in invectives and would like to avoid the same by finally disposing off the matter. Normally, the writ petition should not have been finally disposed off at the admission stage itself but I do not wish to foul the sanctity of the court by permitting two members of judicial fraternity to indulge in invectives and would like to avoid the same by finally disposing off the matter. Otherwise also, on a perusal of the order complained against, I find that nothing on merit turns on the observations sought to be expunged and this can be done without in any way affecting the decision. I, therefore, proceed to finally dispose of the petition. 6. In the certified copy of the order para 3 appears to have been repeated due to some mistake and two consecutive paras bear no. 3. On a careful perusal, I am of the opinion that paras 5 and 8 of the judgment shall be deleted as a whole while paragraph 3 occurring first and paragraphs 6, 7 and 11 shall now read as under : "3. This is a case of perverse.........finding.........The order impugned in the revision has been passed on surmises and conjectures without.........adopting any judicial approach." "6. Since no judicial mind has been applied......the order impugned in revision is reduced to all smoke and no fire." "7. I am of the considered opinion that the matter was covered by the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 CPC and that the revisionist had shown sufficient cause for his absence on the date of hearing. The finding that the learned Judge has recorded is that the applicant-revisionist had no son at Riwari and as such he could not have gone there to see his son.......The learned Judge could not be the best Judge of a circumstance which was not in his exclusive knowledge. If at all, it was in the exclusive knowledge of the applicant whose son it was. The extent to which the learned Judge has gone while recording this finding is tantamount to denying the existence of the applicant's son residing at Riwari. No opportunity was furnished to the applicant to rebut this allegation, " "11. What has been challenged is no finding of fact but it is mixed question of law and fact, in so far as it relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 CPC within the ambit and scope of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. What has been challenged is no finding of fact but it is mixed question of law and fact, in so far as it relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 CPC within the ambit and scope of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. This Court is of opinion that the order impugned in the revision ...is not sustainable. " Before parting with this petition, I must also express my deep anguish and displeasure for the language employed by the petitioner against his superior officer. He is guilty of committing the same mistake for which he is seeking redress against his superior officer by means of this writ petition. Particularly in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the petition and also elsewhere he has employed language which is neither befitting a member of the Judicial Service nor justified whatever may have been the circumstances. This must be viewed rather seriously. The petitioner ought to be aware that use of the language such as has been employed by him in the petition against a superior officer cannot go unnoticed and in future he should be careful and must always employ respectful and dignified language even in official correspondence and also otherwise. I should have rejected the petition on this ground alone but since I feel that some injustice has been done to him, I have taken a some what lenient view of the matter. However, the final order passed herein shall be subject to the petitioner making an application for deleting all the offending portions employing improper language within three months. Failure to comply with the above will result in dismissal of the petition. 7. A certified copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar after three months for carrying of the necessary corrections1 in the order of the revisional court within 15 days of the receipt thereof and shall report compliance of the same within a month thereafter. 8. A copy of this order shall also be placed on the personal file of both the officers concerned for being dealt with on the administrative side. Subject to the above, the petition is allowed and subject to what has been stated in the body of this order the offending parts of the order Annexure 1' to the petition shall stand expunged. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.