JUDGMENT It is regretable that incidents such as the present one, in the course of proceedings in the Court room are becoming a subject matter of reference for contempt at the instance of the Judge. The learned Judge concerned with, the trial of the Civil case has made a reference to this Court complaining that the contemner Kriparam Mishra who is an Advocate of long standing at the Bar, in the course of recording deposition of a witness insisted on being allowed the witness to see the file to refresh his memory and on the refusal by the Judge to grant such permission, cast aspersions on his impartiality and independence. The conduct of the Advocate, if true, is condemnable. It is more surprising that the petitioner who is an Advocate and an officer of the Court, on service of notice of the reference on him for appearance in this Court, refused to accept the same and now it is explained on his behalf that since the notice was not accompanied by a copy of the reference he had to refuse the notice. The Court notice should have led to an enquiry by the Advocate as to what was the case in which he had been summoned by the Court. It was possible for him to have obtained the copy of the reference from this Court when case number was mentioned in the notice. The proceedings were instituted not against an ordinary litigant, but a member of the Bar. It is a separate matter of enquiry which this Court is directing through the Chief Justice as to why the Registry after refusal of notice by the contemner allowed the matter to remain pending for long ten years from 1988 to 1998. It has seen the light of the day only on 16.12.97 when it was after long time listed before the Court. The first notice in the case was issued by the Court on 29.4.1988 and the cause why it was not listed before the Court upto 1997 would be a subject matter of enquiry at the Registry level. In reply to the contempt notice, the contemner personally appeared and in his reply he has submitted that because of his loud voice the learned Judge conducting the trial misunderstood his demeanour and treated it to be contemptuous. In reply to the contempt notice, the contemner personally appeared and in his reply he has submitted that because of his loud voice the learned Judge conducting the trial misunderstood his demeanour and treated it to be contemptuous. The contemner has also tendered conditional apology, if this Court finds fault on his part. The very fact that the learned Judge was impelled to make this reference shows that the conduct of the Advocate in the course of proceedings fell short of expected standard as the Senior Member of the Bar. How often would it be necessary to impress upon the members of the Bar that the interest of the institution demands that such incidents in Court room casting aspersions by Bar against Bench should be avoided as it erodes the confidence of the litigants in the process of dispensation of justice. The conduct in the Court room both of the Lawyer and Judge has to be dignified. The Court is accessible to all. If there is any aberration in conduct or misbehaviour on the part of the Judge, the forum to complain against him is elsewhere to the Judicial Authority to which he is subordinate. Raising of temper in the Court room or making loose remarks do not befit the status either of the Judge or the Advocate. Since due to the fault of the Registry and the delay caused by non-acceptance of notice by the contemner, a period of ten years has passed, this Court at this distance of time does not take a very serious view of the matter and accepts the apology tendered by the respondent. The contempt proceedings are dropped with a note of warning and caution to the contemner that his conduct in future should befit his maturity in age and practice. This Court expects that there would be no recurrence of such incidents in the Court room at his instance. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judge, Shri S.N. Dwivedi, wherever he is posted at whose instance this reference has been made and to Shri Kriparam Mishra, Advocate, Waidhan, Distt. Sidhi. The contempt proceedings thus stand discharged but the contemner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs incurred in these proceedings, within three months from today.