JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned interim order of the learned single Judge dated 18.5.2004 by which the Registrar (Listing) of this Court has been directed to pay exemplary cost of Rs. 500 because some affidavit was not available on the record. 3. Since the facts are not in dispute it is not necessary to call for a counter-affidavit. 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.5.2004 shows that the learned single Judge was unhappy because the affidavit dated 5.4.2004 filed by the petitioner in the Registry was not available on the record. While we fully share the concern of the learned single Judge that the documents filed in this Court should as soon as possible be placed on the record, we cannot approve of the order directing imposition of exemplary cost on the Registrar (Listing) as well as the other personnel of the Registry. 5. It must be remembered that the Registrar General, Registrar (Listing) etc. of this Court are working under tremendous pressure in view of the heavy volume of filing of cases in this Court. The Hon'ble Judges as well as the officers in the Registry are working under the tremendous pressure of the workload, and in this situation obviously sometimes some mistake occurs and sometimes some omission takes place. 6. In our opinion directing the Registrar (Listing) of this Court to pay exemplary cost of Rs. 500 was. with great respect to the learned single Judge, unwarranted and uncalled for. particularly when these adverse remarks was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. The rules of natural justice require that before adverse remarks are made the Court should give opportunity of hearing to that person but no such opportunity appears to have been given to the Registrar (Listing) before passing the impugned order dated 18.5.2004. 7. In view of the above this appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.5.2004 is set aside except the direction that the earlier interim order shall continue. However, although we have allowed this appeal and set aside the order dated 18.5.2004 we fully share the concern of the learned single Judge that the documents filed in this Court are often not placed on record. Impugned order dated 18.5.2004 is set aside except the direction that the earlier interim order shall continue. However, although we have allowed this appeal and set aside the order dated 18.5.2004 we fully share the concern of the learned single Judge that the documents filed in this Court are often not placed on record. The result is that very often when cases are taken up for hearing it is found that some affidavit or application is not on record, although learned counsel states that he had filed it in the Registry. This is happening in many cases, and a large number of cases have to be adjourned because some important document is not on record, although it was filed, and this affects the smooth functioning of the Court. 8. The Registrar General is, therefore, directed to prepare a scheme so that in future alt documents filed in the Registry are placed as soon as possible thereafter on the record so that the functioning of the Court may not suffer. 9. This discretion, however, will not be treated as any adverse remark against the Registrar General or the Registrar (Listing) of this Court.