Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. Ms. Bedi has filed amended explanation of Dr. S.K. Kapoor. The same is taken on record. After having gone through the amended explanation, we deem it proper to accept the same. Consequently, notice issued to Dr. S.K. Kapoor is discharged. Sd/-N.K. Sodhi, J. N.K. Sodhi, J. 2. I agree with brother Singhvi, J. that the notice issued to Dr. S.K. Kapoor be discharged but I shall like to record my reasons after noticing some facts. 3. A petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 was filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant from the ground floor of shop No. 641 situated in main bazar kalka, District Panchkula. This petition was filed in the Court of Rent Controller, Ambala Notice of the petition was ordered to be served on the respondent therein for 31.5.1996 on which date the Rent Controller passed the following order. "Present: Sh. S.K. Sud, counsel for the petitioner. Notice of the respondent received back duly served. Case called for several times. But none has come present on behalf of the respondent. Waited sufficiently. It is already 11.00 AM As such the respondent proceeded against exparte. Now to come up, for exparte evidence on 6.8.1996. Parties and counsels are directed to appear before the District Court. Sd/- CJ JD/Ambala 31.5.96" After the ejectment petition had been filed at Ambala, the Court of Civil Judge and Rent Controller at Panchkula was created and by order dated 28.5.1996 the learned District Judge, Ambala transferred 170 cases from the Court of Rent Controller, Ambala to the Court of Rent Controller, Panchkula. However, the petition filed by the landlord out of which the present proceedings have arisen was not included in the list of the transferred cases and it is for this reason that the learned Rent Controller on 31.5.1996 had directed the parties and their counsel to appear before the District Court which is at Ambala without fixing any date for their appearance. The reason why the Rent Controller directed the parties to appear before the District Court was that the case could be entrusted to the Rent Controller, Panchkula so that the same could proceed there in accordance with law as the tenanted premises were located at Kalka which fell within the jurisdiction of District Panchkula. The reason why the Rent Controller directed the parties to appear before the District Court was that the case could be entrusted to the Rent Controller, Panchkula so that the same could proceed there in accordance with law as the tenanted premises were located at Kalka which fell within the jurisdiction of District Panchkula. The parties did not appear before the District Judge at Ambala and the case was somehow fixed before the Rent Controller at Panchkula on 6.8.1996 on which date he adjourned the same to 20.8.1996 for recording exparte evidence on the landlord. The exparte evidence was recorded on 20.8.1996 and 14.9.1996 and by ex parte order dated 10.10.1996 the Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition and ordered ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. The tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller at Panchkula for setting aside the exparte order of ejectment dated 10.10.1996 and also the order dated 31.5.1996 by which ex parte proceedings had been ordered. This application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 4.9.2001 holding that the same was not maintainable. The tenant then filed Rent Appeal No. 10 on 12.9.2001 which was heard by Dr. S.K. Kapoor, who was the appellate authority at Panchkula. The appeal was allowed on 15.6.2002 and it was held by the appellate authority that the case had never been entrusted to the Rent Controller at Panchkula and, therefore, all proceedings subsequent to the order dated 31.5.1996 were illegal, unauthorised and against the provisions of law and were accordingly set aside. The appellate authority further directed the parties to appear before the District Judge, Ambala on 16.7.2002 in pursuance to the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 31.5.1996 which has been reproduced herein above. 4. One of the questions that was raised before the appellate authority was that the impugned order before it was not appealable in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Daya Chand Hardyal of Ambala City v. Sir Chand son of Ronki Ram, (1983)85 P.L.R. 775. 4. One of the questions that was raised before the appellate authority was that the impugned order before it was not appealable in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Daya Chand Hardyal of Ambala City v. Sir Chand son of Ronki Ram, (1983)85 P.L.R. 775. This plea was controverted by the tenant and the appellate authority after noticing the rival pleas of the parties and the Full Bench judgment of this Court came to the conclusion that the same was not applicable and that the Court at Panchkula had no jurisdiction to proceed with the petition as the case had never been entrusted to that Court. It was further held that the landlord had played fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party while obtaining the ex parte order of ejectment. The finding of the appellate authority in this regard is in the following words: "However, the case here is otherwise. There has been no proceedings before the District Court. Main Rent petition was never put up before the District Court. There was no order of entrustment of the main petition to the court of Panchkula. Therefore, the court at Panchkula had no jurisdiction. The landlord petitioner of the main petition was under duty to well inform the court at Panchkula that directions of Learned Rent Controller Ambala in terms of order dated 31.5.96 were that the petition was to be put up before the District Court and that there was no entrustment of the Rent petition by the District Judge to the Court at Panchkula and as such the court at Panchkula had no jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings. But the petitioner-landlord intentionally had not pointed about it to the court of Rent Controller at Panchkula and by with-holding the information and by getting the trial proceedings misdirected and with mala fide intention got the proceedings misconducted and as such, petitioner-landlord has made himself guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party and obtained a nullity decree." The appellate authority again while noticing the Full Bench judgment in M/s Daya Chand Hardyals case (supra) observed as under: This being so taking that under the ratio of Full Court authority of our own High Court under reference (Daya Chand, Hardayal of Ambala City v. Beer Chand son of Raunki Ram, (1983)85 P.L.R. 775). The order in respect of the prayer for setting aside the exparte proceedings being not appealable and only revisable but as per as the second part of the proceedings which flow from the second part of the order dated 31.5.1996 of learned Rent Controller, Ambala together with unauthorised entrustment of main petition to the court of Learned Rent Controller, Panchkula and subsequent illegal proceedings and fraud played upon the proceedings of the court making the eviction decree, a nullity decree under the ratio of the Apex Court Authority, S.P. Cengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Ors., (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 293. Such decree being nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. It has to be treated as a nullity by every court and can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings and, therefore, the prayer in the original application from whose order the present appeal has arisen, was also for and against nullity and non-est order of eviction and, therefore, to that extent the present appeal against it is in fact an appeal against eviction and as such, for such challenge, the present appeal is maintainable. The appellant having first moved the court of Rent Controller, Panchkula and the nullity decree being non-est in the eyes of law can be challenged at any point of time and as such, the technicalities of limitation as such do not come in the way of such appeal." Feeling aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 15.6.2002 the tenant filed Civil Revision No. 3828 of 2002 in this Court which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 31.7.2002. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed in detail and notice of motion was issued to the tenant. After staying further proceedings before the Rent Controller, the learned Single Judge recorded the following order:- "Prima facie, it appears that Dr. S.K. Kapoor, Additional District Judge, Panchkula (exercising the powers of appellate authority) has committed judicial indiscipline by ignoring the law laid down by the Full Bench and Division Bench of this Court, in the cases referred to above and in various other judgments of this Court. Before proceeding further in the matter, in my opinion, it would be appropriate if Dr. S.K. Kapoor, Additional District Judge, Panchkula (Appellate Authority) is given opportunity to furnish his explanation in this regard. The office shall send a copy of this order along with a forwarding letter to Dr. S.K. Kapoor (through District and Sessions Judge, Ambala) forthwith, who shall submit his explanation to this Court (through District and Sessions Judge, Ambala), so as to reach this Court well-in-time so that the said explanation is put up for consideration along with the main petition on the next date fixed in this case." It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the proceedings the landlord sold the demised shop to the tenant and, therefore, the proceedings in the revision petition became infructuous and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.9.2002. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the view taken by the appellate authority. The case was, however, adjourned to 30.9.2002 for consideration of the reply filed by Dr. S.K. Kapoor who was the appellate authority. Dr. S.K. Kapoor before filing his reply had addressed a communication to Honble the Chief Justice with a copy to the learned Single Judge stating therein that he would not get justice from the latter. The file was ordered to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate orders. On 20.9.2002 the learned Single Judge who was hearing the matter directed that the case be put up before some other Bench after obtaining necessary orders from the Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice constituted our Bench to hear this matter and this is how the case was put up before us for disposal of the show cause notice issued to Dr. S.K. Kapoor. 5. On receipt of notice from this Court Dr. The learned Chief Justice constituted our Bench to hear this matter and this is how the case was put up before us for disposal of the show cause notice issued to Dr. S.K. Kapoor. 5. On receipt of notice from this Court Dr. S.K. Kapoor filed his explanation. The main plea taken by him is that he had recorded a finding that the landlord had practiced fraud on the Court of Rent Controller while obtaining the exparte order of ejectment and, therefore, the entire proceedings stood vitiated. He referred to the grounds of revision taken in this Court, and stated that the finding of fraud had not been challenged by the landlord. This apart, he also pleaded in his explanation that he had a background of unpleasant relations with the learned single Judge when the latter before his elevation was District Judge (Vigilance) and also gave the details of that background and stated that the notice issued to him may have been due to the annoyance of the learned single Judge. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to go into those allegations as Dr. S.K. Kapoor later in the course of proceedings in this Court in his wisdom and in the circumstances chose to file an amended explanation deleting all the personal allegations made against the learned single Judge. 6. Having perused the order dated 15.6.2002 passed by Dr. S.K. Kapoor as appellate authority, ii is clear that he had not ignored the Full Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Daya Chand Hardyals case (supra) and after noticing the same had come to the conclusion that the same was not applicable in view of the fraud practiced by the landlord. Since we are not examining the correctness of the finding recorded by the appellate authority because the main revision petition stands dismissed as withdrawn but what one can say is that the findings recorded by the appellate authority could at the most be erroneous and if the learned Judge was of the view that they were erroneous, the same could be set aside in revision but certainly no judicial indiscipline had been committed by the officer for which a notice was required to be issued to him to explain his conduct. I am clearly of the view that the notice issued to Dr. I am clearly of the view that the notice issued to Dr. S.K. Kapoor was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In somewhat similar circumstances in Brij Kishore Thakur v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1157 the Apex Court deprecated such practice on the part of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Patna when he called for a report from the Judicial Officer as to the circumstances under which he granted bail to the two accused. In that case Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Purnea granted bail to the two passengers of the car from where 97 kgs of "non-duty paid Ganja" hidden in a false chamber had been recovered and the case registered against them under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While cancelling the bail the learned Single Judge called for the explanation of the Judicial Officer and passed severe strictures against him. The Supreme Court while expunging the remarks against the Judicial Officer observed as under:- "We fail to appreciate how the learned single Judge could have asked the Subordinate Judicial Officer to send up a report in defence of his judicial order. Reasons in support of a judicial order can appear only in the order itself and it is an unwholesome practice to compel a Judicial Officer to write a report subsequently in defence of his conclusions." In K.P. Tiwari v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1031 the Apex Court while dealing with the observations of a learned Judge of the High Court passing strictures against a Judicial Officer observed as under:- "The higher Court every day come across orders of the lower Courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. That is one of the functions of the superior Courts. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions. A Judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity. While doing so, sometimes, he is likely to err........It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks more correctly up to their nostrils. While doing so, sometimes, he is likely to err........It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher Courts to think coolly and decide patently. Every error, however, gross it may look, should net, therefore, be attributed to improper motive." In Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1996 S.C.W. 2098 their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a similar situation observed as under: "It cannot be forgotten that in our system, like elsewhere, appellate and revisional Courts have been set up on the pre-supposition that lower Courts would in some measures of cases go wrong in decision-making, both on facts as also on law, and they have been knit-up to correct those orders. The human element, in justice being an important element, computer-like functioning cannot be expected of the Courts; however, hard they may try and keep themselves precedent- trodden in the scope of discretions and in the manner of judging. Whenever any such intolerable error is detected by or pointed out to a superior Court, it is functionally required to correct that error and may, here and there, in an appropriate case, and in a manner befitting, maintaining the dignity of the Court and independence of judiciary, convey its message in its judgment to the officer concerned through a process of reasoning, essentially persuasive, reasonable, mellow but clear, and result-orienting, but rarely as a rebuke. Sharp reaction of the kind exhibited in the afore-extraction is not in keeping with institutional functioning. The premise that a Judge committed a mistake or an error beyond the limits of tolerance, is no ground to inflict condemnation on the Judge Subordinate, unless there existed something else and for exceptional grounds." We need to remind ourselves of the above precautions. I am, therefore, of the view that for the reasons stated above, the show cause notice issue to Dr. S.K. Kapoor be dropped.