JUDGMENT - VIJAY DAGA, J.:---A small impugned order exhibiting gross judicial impropriety on the part of the City Civil Court, Bombay is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision application filed under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C." for short). The impugned order dated 17th December, 1997 passed in Suit No. 2938 of 1986 being product of oral motion for speaking to minutes reads as under: "ORAL ORDER The matter is moved for speaking to the Minutes in relation to the order dated 20-2-1997. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for defendant No. 3 that on page 6 the last line should read as POSITION and not as POSSESSION as indicated therein. Having read the entire order and subsequent portion thereafter it would be clear that the word POSSESSION had crept in by mistake and therefore it is not (sic: now) ordered that the word 'possession' in the last line on page 6 of the order is ordered to be corrected as 'position'. Officer to issue certified copy of the order passed today. Matter removed from board. Application for stay of this order, recorded and rejected. 17-12-1997 Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai" 2. A few facts leading to the present dispute as disclosed in the present application may be noted at the outset. The original plaintiff, on 12th May 1986, filed a suit to restrain the respondents/original defendants from encroaching upon the suit property in any manner and disturbing his possession thereon. On 14th May 1986, an ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the applicant restraining the respondents from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the applicant in relation to the suit property. The said order was confirmed by an order dated 5th January, 1987. The attempt of the respondents, to get the order modified, did not succeed as the request in this behalf was turned by an order dated 29th October, 1987. 3. The original defendants along with present defendants (some of them being heirs) on the face of confirmed order of injunction, encroached upon the suit property by using physical force and covered the open space with rags, scrap materials and various other goods. The original plaintiff and his family members were given threats of dire consequences. 3. The original defendants along with present defendants (some of them being heirs) on the face of confirmed order of injunction, encroached upon the suit property by using physical force and covered the open space with rags, scrap materials and various other goods. The original plaintiff and his family members were given threats of dire consequences. The original plaintiff, therefore, took out notice of motion for contempt, however had expired during the pendency of the said Notice of Motion, as such his widow Smt. Parvatidevi came on record to proceed with the suit. 4. Smt. Parvatidevi, widow of deceased plaintiff took the litigation in her hands and took out Notice of Motion No. 5011 of 1989 for the restitution i.e. possession of the suit property and prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out any construction thereon. This Notice of Motion came up for ad-interim order before the Court on 23rd October, 1989. The defendants in defence contended that the construction had already been carried out by them on the suit property. The learned Judge therefore, appointed Commissioner to visit site and sought his report in respect of actual position prevailing on suit site. Accordingly, the Commissioner visited the suit site and submitted his report on 25th August 1989 and reported absence of any structure on the suit site. 5. The Notice of Motion bearing No. 211 of 1990 for restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property was also taken out by Smt. Parvatidevi. Ad-interim injunction was granted in her favour on 12th January 1990. The defendants in the meantime carried out unauthorised construction on the suit site. The Bombay Municipal Corporation had demolish the unauthorised structures with due notice. The plaintiff, therefore, took out Notice of Motion No. 1203 of 1993 for restraining the defendant from re-erecting the structure demolished by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. During the pendency of the aforesaid motion, respondent No. 3 herein illegally and unauthorisedly converted temporary room No. 3 in a pakka structure of brick masonary walls and in the process further committed breach of the order of injunction by constructing permanent structure on the suit site and also by resorting to further encroachment thereon. During the pendency of the aforesaid motion, respondent No. 3 herein illegally and unauthorisedly converted temporary room No. 3 in a pakka structure of brick masonary walls and in the process further committed breach of the order of injunction by constructing permanent structure on the suit site and also by resorting to further encroachment thereon. The plaintiff finding that the defendants are persistently carrying on permanent illegal construction work on the suit site, took out another Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 1996 for contempt and for restraining the defendants from carrying out further illegal construction on the suit site. This Notice of Motion led to the appointment of another Commissioner by an order dated 4th July, 1996. The Commissioner was appointed to visit suit site and to report the factual position existing on the date of visit. The Commissioner, accordingly, visited suit site and filed his report on 5th July, 1996. Both the reports were produced on record of this revision application on visual comparison of the present report with that of earlier one, it was clear that the respondents persisted in their illegal and contemptuous act and abused the due process of law by resorting to unauthorised construction and encroachment on the suit site. 6. All the aforesaid Notice of Motion came up for hearing before the Judge of the City Civil Court in C.R. No. 1. After lengthy arguments, the Learned Judge disposed of all the aforesaid Notices of Motion by consolidated order dated 20th February 1997 and ordered therein restoration of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff after carrying out necessary demolition, if necessary, with the aid of police. The learned Judge in his order dated 20th February 1997 observed as under: "Mr. Khan pointed out that insofar as the right to recover possession or part possession is concerned, plaintiff has no locus whatsoever on account of the fact that right to claim can only be by the owner. Insofar as the aspect is concerned there is no substance in the argument of Learned Counsels for Defendants 2 and 3. Khan pointed out that insofar as the right to recover possession or part possession is concerned, plaintiff has no locus whatsoever on account of the fact that right to claim can only be by the owner. Insofar as the aspect is concerned there is no substance in the argument of Learned Counsels for Defendants 2 and 3. The learned Counsels read through the affidavits and pointed out several aspects which according to them will be in their favour." (emphasis supplied) The operative part of the order thus reads: ORDER "Sheriff of Mumbai is directed to restore back possession of the premises in question leaving a clear passage of 9'3" as was recorded by the Commissioner on his visit on 25-8-1989 and for the said purpose if any part or portion of any of the structures is necessary to be demolished the same will be within the powers of the Sheriff of Mumbai. The Sheriff of Mumbai will be entitled to obtain such police protection as is necessary for the purpose of execution of the aforesaid order. (emphasis supplied). According Notices of Motion taken out as aforesaid are marked as disposed of by the following orders:--- ORDER Notice of Motion Nos. 3600/88, 5011/1989, 211/1990, 3573/1991 1203 of 1993 and 3320/1996 taken out by the parties to the suit stand disposed of. Defendants 2 and 3 waive service of the suit. Adjd to 28-2-1997 for Directions. Defendants 2 and 3 prays for stay of the operation of the order. Order stayed for a period of two weeks, from today. 20-2-1997 Sd/- Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai." 7. The defendants after suffering the aforesaid order dated 20th February, 1997 sought certain clarifications from the learned Judge. The learned Judge after hearing passed the following order: "2938/1986 No change is necessary in the order. Earlier order stayed for a period of further 2 weeks. Suit to appear on board for direction on 21-4-1997." 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20th February 1997, the respondents filed Appeal from Order bearing No. 217 of 1997. The said appeal came up for admission before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th March 1997. The learned Counsel for the respondents finding that the learned Single Judge was not inclined to admit the appeal, applied for withdrawal of the said appeal with liberty to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings. The said appeal came up for admission before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th March 1997. The learned Counsel for the respondents finding that the learned Single Judge was not inclined to admit the appeal, applied for withdrawal of the said appeal with liberty to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings. The respondents were allowed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to challenge order impugned therein in an appropriate proceeding. However, the order was stayed for a period of two weeks at the request of the appellants/defendants. 9. The respondents, on or about October 1997, filed writ petition bearing No. 4996 of 1997 to challenge the said order dated 20th February 1997. This writ petition came up for motion hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court who raised an objection regarding maintainability of the petition. The petition came to be withdrawn with liberty to take out appropriate fresh proceedings. The application for stay of execution of the order dated 20th February, 1997 was rejected by the said learned Single Judge. The respondents thereafter never initiated any further proceedings to challenge the order dated 20th February 1997, with the result, the said order became final and conclusive. 10. Smt. Parvatidevi expired on 30th March, 1997 and she was substituted by the present applicant Gulzarilal brother of the original plaintiff late Hazarilal. 11. The present applicant Mr. Gulzarilal applied to the Sheriff of Mumbai for execution of the order dated 20th February 1997. The defendants again caused obstruction when the Sheriff tried to execute the order dated 20th February 1997. At the relevant time, the suit was pending before the learned City Civil Judge Shri A.V. Potdar. He was a dealing Court right from October, 1997 to December, 1997 as the said suit was transferred to him as per the re-arranged assignment. The Sheriff fixed 15th December, 1997 as date for execution of the order dated 20th February, 1997. On 15th December, 1997, the respondents present on the suit site openly told the bailiff that in no circumstances they would hand over the possession of the suit site. The Police who were present on the suit site summoned extra police force to meet the contingency. On 15th December, 1997, the respondents present on the suit site openly told the bailiff that in no circumstances they would hand over the possession of the suit site. The Police who were present on the suit site summoned extra police force to meet the contingency. When a police van carrying extra force of SRP arrived at suit site, the daughter of respondent No. 2 started shouting loudly and threatened that if any attempt was made to remove them forcibly, she would set herself on fire. She also poured Kerosene over her body. Unfortunately, the Police did not arrest her or take any action to ensure the execution of the order of the Court. Consequently, the execution was required to be deferred. 12. The respondents engaged new advocate. On 17th December, 1997, the respondent No. 3 through newly engaged lawyer, orally moved the Judge of the City Civil Court presiding over Court Room No. 7 for speaking to the minutes without moving any written application and the said Judge entertained the said oral motion in spite of strong objection from the Advocate appearing for the present applicant and ordered that the word "possession" in the order dated 20th February 1997 be corrected as "position". 13. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 17th December, 1997, the applicant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and challenged the said order. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the order was not only without jurisdiction but the learned Judge has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him and that he ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in him as the matter was not pending before him. It was further contended that all the motions dealt with and decided by the learned Judge on 20th February, 1997, did not contain any motion for restoration of position. On the contrary, the main motion bearing Notice of Motion No. 5011 of 1989 was for restitution and/or restoration of possession and the same was allowed in terms of order dated 20th February 1997. Consequently, he contended that the restoration of position was neither sought nor it was in contemplation of anybody. On the contrary, the main motion bearing Notice of Motion No. 5011 of 1989 was for restitution and/or restoration of possession and the same was allowed in terms of order dated 20th February 1997. Consequently, he contended that the restoration of position was neither sought nor it was in contemplation of anybody. The applicant further contended that the order, directing delivery of possession and demolition, was granted only by way of necessary ancillary reliefs as the plaintiff was dispossessed in breach of the order of injunction and, therefore, the trial Court found it necessary to put the plaintiff back in possession so as to restore status-quo-ante. The learned Counsel submitted that it was specifically brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the respondents, having failed in all their attempts to overcome the order dated 20th February 1997, were approaching him with ulterior motives and that he should not pass any order which will have the effect of replacing the original order without there being any request for review. The said order was further criticized by the learned Counsel on the ground that gross judicial indiscipline had been exhibited by the Judge in passing the impugned order and that the impugned order suffers from an error of jurisdiction and has resulted in miscarriage of justice and the Judge has acted with material illegality and irregularity by entertaining an oral motion. The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice and cause irreparable injury. 14. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 Ms. R. Bagkar when called upon to support the impugned order, expressed her helplessness and requested for discharge on the ground that a day before, notice has been issued to the respondents to make some alternate arrangements to represent their interest before the Court. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that the above petition was taken up for hearing on 7th April, 2000 and after hearing the same for sometime it remained part-heard and thereafter appeared on board of 20th April 2000 after intervening holidays. Shri S.C. Tamhane, learned Counsel had appeared for respondent No. 2 on 7th April, 2000. When the matter was called out on 20th April 2000, Mr. S.C. Tamhane was absent and Ms. R. Bagkar, instructed by Mr. Tamhane appeared and sought adjournment. In the wake of these circumstances, this Court refused to discharge Ms. Shri S.C. Tamhane, learned Counsel had appeared for respondent No. 2 on 7th April, 2000. When the matter was called out on 20th April 2000, Mr. S.C. Tamhane was absent and Ms. R. Bagkar, instructed by Mr. Tamhane appeared and sought adjournment. In the wake of these circumstances, this Court refused to discharge Ms. Bagkar from this case. The respondent No. 2 was personally present in the Court, however, since she was represented by the Counsel she was not permitted to address the Court. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 did not advance any arguments. Other respondents were absent. 15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the following question arises for my consideration : "Can the impugned order be said to be an out-come of legal and valid exercise of power not occasioning failure of justice or causing irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made?" 16. At the outset the remarkable fact worthy of immediate notice is that there was no written application before the learned Judge. The order of the learned Judge was made on an oral application. No slightest attempt was made to indicate even briefly the facts told to him, the question of law, if any raised before him and the reasons which prompted him to modify his earlier order. No record, not a scrap of paper, was filed in the Court at any stage and no contemporaneous record was prepared by anyone containing the barest allegations constituting the foundation of the oral application that was actually made. All that I can gather from the proceedings and record of the Court that some oral application was made and the order dated 20th February, 1997 was modified by the learned Judge. The order does not give any indication as to what prompted him to say that the word "possession" had crept in, by mistake, in the order. A most curious procedure was adopted by the learned Judge while allowing the oral motion moved for speaking to the minutes in relation to his order dated 20th February, 1997. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that while dealing with the practice which was prevailing in Calcutta High Court of obtaining interim order on oral application subject to undertaking being given proposing to file written application later, the Apex Court in (M/s. Samrias Trading Co. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that while dealing with the practice which was prevailing in Calcutta High Court of obtaining interim order on oral application subject to undertaking being given proposing to file written application later, the Apex Court in (M/s. Samrias Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Samuel)1, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 61 observed as under: "...... Shri S.S. Ray, who appeared before us at some stages of the case, informed us that a practice of this nature of obtaining interim orders on oral applications subject to undertaking being given proposing to file written application later, had always been in vogue in the Calcutta High Court. It was a matter of great surprise to us that a Court of justice and at that, a Court of record, should have been following such a practice. ..... ...... We do not have the slightest doubt that, if the practice exists any where, it is a most unwholesome practice, likely to lead to vicious and pernicious results. It is a practice to be strongly deprecated, a practice reminiscent of the feudal days when the French nobility could procure a letter de cachet under the Sovereign's seal authorising a subject's imprisonment without trial and without mention of any reason. It is a practice which strikes at the very root of the system of open and even handed justice as we know it and the sooner it is abandoned the better for the administration of justice. We express our disapprobation and forbid the practice of entertaining oral applications by any Court in matters of consequence without any record before it." 17. In spite of aforesaid strong observations of the Supreme Court made as far as back in 1985, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has dared to adopt the same practice which was criticized by the Apex Court 15 years before. In my opinion, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has exceeded the judicial properiety and modified the order which was impliedly approved by this Court in appeal when the Appeal Court refused to entertain appeal against the said order. Even the writ Court refused to entertain the challenge to the said order. In my opinion, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has exceeded the judicial properiety and modified the order which was impliedly approved by this Court in appeal when the Appeal Court refused to entertain appeal against the said order. Even the writ Court refused to entertain the challenge to the said order. In spite of failure to get over the said order in appeal, the respondents succeeded in getting the said order modified from the same learned Judge who had once turned down the request even for clarification of the said order. 18. At the outset, I must express my serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which the Court records are manipulated to help a particular party to override the judicial process. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. It is apparent on the face of record that the Court below had failed to keep itself within its bound and had exercised ultra vires to its jurisdiction. In such cases, it is the duty of the High Court to see that the purity of justice, dignity of judicial institution is restored and preserved. It is an institution where the people repose faith. It is justice, which this institution dispenses. It is the confidence of people, who approach the judiciary, that it commands. It is the sanctity, which strengthens the justice-delivery-system. These are the foundations on which the entire system is founded. If this foundation is allowed to be eroded then no sooner the edifice of justice will crumble down. 19. Now turning to the merits of the case, it would be absolutely clear from the sequence of events narrated hereinabove that the original plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff had filed suit against the defendants and taken out Notice of Motion for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs possession over the suit property. The ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. It was confirmed by an order dated 5th January, 1987. An attempt to modify the said order was turned down by an order dated 29th October, 1987. The ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. It was confirmed by an order dated 5th January, 1987. An attempt to modify the said order was turned down by an order dated 29th October, 1987. In breach of the said roder of ad-interim injunction the original plaintiff was dispossessed, who had no option but to take out Notice of Motion for restitution of suit property and obtain order of injunction restraining the defendants from making further construction on the suit property and, ultimately, after a long drawn litigation the surviving legal heir of the original plaintiff was successful in obtaining the order directing restitution and delivery of possession of the suit property in his favour. Challenge to the said order had failed in spite of resort to two different remedies i.e. by way of appeal from order and writ petition, though the writ was not maintainable. A bold attempt was made to obstruct the execution of the order dated 20th February, 1977 by the daughter of respondent No. 2 by trying to set herself fire. In the wake of these facts and circumstances, if the impugned order is examined, then it would be absolutely clear that the said order had been passed by a Judge who had no jurisdiction to pass the said order in view the re-arranged assignment and the trial Court went to the extent of exercising jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and passed an order for restoration of position of the suit property which nobody was praying for the while the fight was going on between the parties initially for protecting possession and thereafter for claiming restoration or repossession of the said property. The impugned order, therefore, if allowed to stand is bound to cause failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. As a matter of fact, it was a bounden duty of any Court to put back the party in possession if he was dispossessed disregarding the order of ad-interim injunction so as to restore the status-quo-ante and to maintain sanctity of the judicial order and to give message to a world at large that nobody can take law in his hand to get over the judicial orders of the courts. 20. 20. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is grossly illegal and suffers with material irregularity and impropriety and is a outcome of an act of usprping the jurisdiction not vested in the Judge and has caused miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances discussed above, it is a case fit for invoking the powers under section 115 of C.P.C. after examining the records and hearing the parties. Accordingly, jurisdiction is so invoked and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Court below is directed to take all the steps to implement the order dated 20th February, 1997 as stood on that date. 21. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed with costs quantifying in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. C.C. expedited. Revision application allowed. -----