JUDGMENT : Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. The petitioner, Mr. Dewakar, arguing his matter in person, seeks review of the order of this Court in Contempt Application No. 323 of 1990, Dewakar v. R. P. Pandey, Vlllth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The order of this Court is dated 18th April, 1990. 2. Notwithstanding whether a review application against a final order deciding a contempt application is maintainable or not, yet this Court is considering the review application and deciding it on merits. It appears that the applicant filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, aforesaid, with a copy of the final order of this Court dated 18th April, 1990. The learned Additional District Judge required the applicant to place before him the copy of the Contempt Petition instead of taking up the matter on merits on the next date fixed. This step taken by the learned Additional District Judge has given an occasion to the applicant to come to this Court again by seeking three prayers from this Court. The prayers made in the review application are :- (1) to direct the learned District Judge, Muzaffarnagar to get his case (the matrimonial suit) otherwise pending before the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, disposed of on day to day basis within 30 working days; (2) to get the case decided on merits without prolonging the trial on account of frivolous applications moved by any party ; and (3) to direct the learned District Judge to send weekly compliance report to the High Court till the conclusion of this case. 3. AT the outset, this Court declares that it will not be able to accept any of the prayers which the applicant has made to this Court. 4. Requiring the court below to proceed with the trial day-to-day and determine it within 30 working days, is a time schedule which no Court can keep in to-day's context. This aspect already finds noticed in the final order of this Court dated 18th April, I9y0. This Court had already declared that with strikes which close the courts, the courts alone cannot be held responsible to keep to a time schedule which otherwise the public accepts from a public justice system and only a normalcy of a situation can demand strictness from a court adhering to take up proceedings on the day so fixed. This Court had already declared that with strikes which close the courts, the courts alone cannot be held responsible to keep to a time schedule which otherwise the public accepts from a public justice system and only a normalcy of a situation can demand strictness from a court adhering to take up proceedings on the day so fixed. The court had already made an observation that the order sheet which had been placed by the petitioner along with the contempt petition revealed that proceedings in the district courts at Muzaffarnagar were collapsing on various dates because lawyers struck work. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the learned Additional District Judge had committed any contempt because he could not adhere to the strictness on a direction of mandamus by the High Court to determine the trial within four months. The court indicated to the petitioner that even if he expected this court to keep to a certain time schedule in a particular case, this court is in no different position than any other court in the state as there is no situation which happens in the district court which does not happen in this High Court. The applicant observed to the court that he is aware that a few days ago upon a strike the court had required an explanation from the committee of the lawyers to explain on how they had brought themselves, consequent upon a resolution to abstain from court and to require the Judge to rise and leave court. The court had upon hearing the representatives of the Bar, reserved orders. 5. The petitioner arguing in person desired the court to reopen those proceedings as he had something to say on an aspects upon which the court had not been heard. The contention of the petitioner was that the court may have expressed its views and may have heard the representatives of the lawyers, but he was entitled to have a say, on the third aspect on being a litigant. The court declined his request to reopen those proceedings as orders had been reserved but intimated the petitioner that whatever he desires to say he is entitled, as of right, to criticise a public justice system and this court will place his views on record. 6. The court declined his request to reopen those proceedings as orders had been reserved but intimated the petitioner that whatever he desires to say he is entitled, as of right, to criticise a public justice system and this court will place his views on record. 6. The petitioner contended that he is a victim of strikes and does not agree with the representative view expressed by the High Court Bar Association that there is any right vested in lawyers to abstain from proceedings which engage them in court nor any right vested or otherwise for asking the Judge to rise and leave court upon a strike called by them. The petitioner submits that in a public court room there should be a normalcy of situation in its day to day function and he does not agree with any representative view, be that of a committee of lawyers or of an association of lawyers that they can close court and moreover require the Judge to rise and it does not matter which Judge he may be and which court it may be. The view of the petitioner having been noticed, yet it is not possible, notwithstanding that his views have been brought on record that this court can give a direction to the District Judge that he may otherwise direct the Additional District Judge to take up the trial of the matrimonial suit day to day and determine it within 30 days. The court still feels that the Additional District Judge will keep the spirit of the order of the Bench in mind and continue with the trial, expeditiously. 7. The next prayer refers to the trial not prolonging the suit proceedings. This aspect has already been covered in the observations which have been made by this court above. 8. The last prayer is that the learned District Judge, sends a weekly compliance report to the High Court on the proceedings pending before the Additional District Judge, till the conclusion of this case, cannot be accepted. The court below must be left independent to proceed with the trial in its own style and freedom. 8. The last prayer is that the learned District Judge, sends a weekly compliance report to the High Court on the proceedings pending before the Additional District Judge, till the conclusion of this case, cannot be accepted. The court below must be left independent to proceed with the trial in its own style and freedom. Seeking weekly reports from a subordinate court may give the impression that the trial of the court below is being monitored by the High Court and this may impair the independence of the trial court and will not be conducive to a tiered system of an independent public justice system. This prayer, thus, cannot be accepted. The learned Additional District Judge has required the applicant to file copy of the contempt petition filed before this court by the petitioner. The fact that the trial court requires a copy of the contempt petition should not bother the petitioner. After all he did take an initiative to draw up the proceedings against a learned Additional District Judge. A Judge is entitled to know of the allegations which are made against him and a public record cannot be kept away from the trial Judge, more so when he is under the impression that he has seen the order of this Court dated 18th April, 1990, that something may have been said about him in the contempt petition. Judges are otherwise trained to view a situation with a sense of detachment. - Thus, this court directs the applicant that he will lay before the Additional District Judge a copy of the contempt petition and also of the review application and then leave the two pleadings to be persused by the Judge. The fact that the Additional District Judge desires to see the two pleadings ought not to place any apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the court may have been prejudiced as the petitioners' exercise to take out contempt proceedings against the Additional District Judge have failed. When the copy of the contempt petition and this review application is placed before the Additional District Judge he may peruse them and then lay them to rest and, thereafter, proceed with the trial and ignore any averment which may have been made in the contempt proceedings before this court as that matter in any case has been laid to rest by this Court. But, this court leaves the learned Additional District Judge to arrive on his independent assessment after he has read the contempt petition, the review application and this order. 9. The review application, in the circumstances, is not being accepted. 10. A certified copy of this order may be given to the applicant on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.