B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE present applicant is the judicial officer of the State. By way of this Misc. Civil Application, he has prayed that his Lordship (Late Justice S. D. Shah) be pleased to grant this application and review the judgment and order dated 18. 6. 1993 delivered in A. O. No. 558/92 with A. O. No. 106/93 (reported in 35 (1) GLR 161) to the extent that the adverse remarks / strictures made against the applicant with regard to his conduct in para 25 of the said judgment and delete the same from the judgment. ( 2 ) INITIALLY, notice was ordered to be issued on this application by Justice S. D. Shah himself. In response to the notice issued by this court respondents appeared through their counsel. During the pendency of this application, Justice S. D. Shah died as a Sitting Judge of this court at the young age of 51. Thereafter, my learned Brother Y. B. Bhatt, J. made rule returnable on this application. Thereafter, it was adjourned from time to time by different judges of this court. This matter was adjourned twice by me on the request made by learned counsel for the applicant. Last time, senior advocate Shri Mihir Thakore got this matter adjourned for the purpose of withdrawal of this application, if the applicant is so desired. However, today, learned counsel Shri Thakore, stated at the Bar that the applicant was not willing to withdraw this petition and wants the matter be decided on merits. Therefore, Mr. Thakore was permitted to address this court. ( 3 ) AT the outset, I must state that the applicant wants to seek review of the judgment and order dated 18. 6. 1993 passed by late Justice S. D. Shah in A. O. No. 558/92 with A. O. No. 106/93 with CA No. 975/93 and 5157/97 passing certain strictures against the applicant in para 25 of the said judgment without placing it on the record of this case. 6. 1993 passed by late Justice S. D. Shah in A. O. No. 558/92 with A. O. No. 106/93 with CA No. 975/93 and 5157/97 passing certain strictures against the applicant in para 25 of the said judgment without placing it on the record of this case. I am of the considered opinion that the party who seeks review of the order must place the same order on record and without placing it on record the applicant cannot get any relief from this court because it is well-settled principle of law that any party aggrieved by the order must first place it before the court for its consideration and without placing it on record no person can get relief from the court. Hence, only on this ground this application is required to be rejected. However, learned Senior Advocate Shri Thakore for the applicant submitted that this court should not take such a hyper-technical view of the matter and dispose it only on this ground because the said judgment of late Justice S. D. Shah has already been reported in 1994 (1) GLR 161 in its entirety, therefore, this court should consider the case of the applicant seeking review of the order passed by late Justice S. D. Shah in this application. He submitted that once the Honble Supreme Court permitted the applicant to file review petition against the order passed by late Justice S. D. Shah then, this court cannot dismiss the application on such ground. ( 4 ) IT is true that before filing this application, the applicant had approached the Honble Supreme Court by way of S. L. P. (Civil) No. 17529 of 1994. While disposing that petition Honble Supreme Court observed that the proper procedure would be to move the learned Judge in the High Court to review the observations in regard to which the grievance is made. However, with utmost respect to Shri Thakore, Honble Supreme Court has never observed that the applicant can seek review of the order without placing it on the record of this case. Hence, the submission of Mr. Thakore was required to be rejected straightaway. ( 5 ) ON merits, Mr. Thakore has submitted that late Justice S. D. Shah ought not to have made such observations in para 25 of his judgment without hearing the applicant. Hence, the submission of Mr. Thakore was required to be rejected straightaway. ( 5 ) ON merits, Mr. Thakore has submitted that late Justice S. D. Shah ought not to have made such observations in para 25 of his judgment without hearing the applicant. He submitted that such observations are made in gross violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same is required to be expunged from the judgment and order of late Justice S. D. Shah. In support of his submission Mr. Thakore has relied upon two judgments of the Honble Supreme Court; (1) (2001)3 SCC 54 and (2) AIR 1994 SC 103. There cannot be any quarrel with principle laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid two judgments. However, in my considered opinion none of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court cited by Mr. Thakore will have application to the facts of the present case. It is true that the possibility of single or casual aberration of an otherwise honest, upright and righteous Judge being caught unaware in the net of adverse observation is not desirable because such incident would not only have demoralizing effect on him but also on his colleagues, therefore, the court should try to avoid it as far as possible. However, that is not the case of the present applicant. It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Registrar of the Gujarat High Court that recently only unanimous decision has been taken by full court to place him under suspension for similar type of misconduct. It may be stated that the Honble Supreme Court has clearly stated that any conduct of a subordinate judicial officer unbecoming of and demanding a rebuff should be simply overlooked. On gross facts of this case, if late Justice S. D. Shah made observations against learned Judge-present applicant then, it will be difficult for me to take different view of the matter. ( 6 ) IT is surprising that today Mr. Thakore has tendered affidavit of advocate Shri Bipin Zaveri of Jamnagar in support of the case of the present applicant. The said affidavit is dated 8. 10. 2001. ( 6 ) IT is surprising that today Mr. Thakore has tendered affidavit of advocate Shri Bipin Zaveri of Jamnagar in support of the case of the present applicant. The said affidavit is dated 8. 10. 2001. This fact itself goes to show that even after transfer of the present applicant from the place where he passed the order, which was criticized by late Justice S. D. Shah, the applicant after of lapse of almost 9 years of passing of the order could manage to get such affidavit from the advocate, appeared before him. The explanation offered by Mr. Thakore for expunging the remarks made in para 25 of the judgment by late Justice S. D. Shah is superfluous, therefore, cannot be accepted. I am of the considered opinion that while passing the strictures and remarks against the applicant in para 25 of his judgment late Justice S. D. Shah has not done anything wrong which requires to be corrected by this court in this application. According to me one dirty fish is sufficient to spoil the entire pond. Having carefully gone through the judgment and order delivered by late Justice S. D. Shah and the explanation sought to be submitted by the applicant against the remarks / strictures passed against him in para 25 of the judgment, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for. In my considered opinion such person in the judiciary are menace to the institution and because of such persons image of the judiciary is lower down. In view of the above discussion, this application fails and is dismissed with special costs of Rs. 10,000/=. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting, I must state that after the judgment and order passed by late Justice S. D. Shah, the Registrar of this court by his letter dated 18. 6. 1994 (Annexure-A) running page No. 28 of this application informed the present applicant about the said order on the directions issued by the then Honble Chief Justice and other Honble Judges of this court to offer his explanation against the adverse remarks passed against the applicant in the judgment. The said letter was replied on 14. 7. 1994 (Annexure-B) running page 30. It is a brief letter which is reproduced as under :-"no. 72 of 1994 v. N. Shah 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S. D. ). , bharuch. The said letter was replied on 14. 7. 1994 (Annexure-B) running page 30. It is a brief letter which is reproduced as under :-"no. 72 of 1994 v. N. Shah 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (S. D. ). , bharuch. 4th July, 1994 To The Honble Registrar High Court of Gujarat Ahmedabad Through-Honble Dist. Judge, Bharuch. Subject : Explanation against remarks reference : Your Honours letter No. A-0710/93 dated 18. 6. 94. Respected Sir, with reference to the subject and reference noted above, I have to submit as under: sir, I am in receipt of your Honours above referred letter on 23. 6. 1994. Sir, as I have to study the judgment and the relevant facts being an old matter, I may kindly be given at least a fortnights time to send my explanation please. However, as the said remarks as stated have already been entered in the Confi. record ex-parte. Under the situation, how far my explanation would clear my position is a big question. . . . . (emphasis supplied) yours faithfully, sd/- (V. N. SHAH)" ( 8 ) PRIMA facie, I am of the considered opinion that the contents of the aforesaid letter is contemptuous, therefore, the office is directed to place this judgment with the entire file before the learned Chief Justice for initiating either suo motu contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or for taking any appropriate action against the applicant. .