JUDGMENT By this application, petitioner is seeking permission to implead Suresh Singh, Sandesh lain, Sandeep Jain and Rakesh Jain as respondents. In paragraph 2 of the application petitioner has pleaded as under: "That, on 21.10.2005, the above case was fixed for hearing before Hon 'ble Justice Shri Shantanu Kemkar-J., during the course of hearing the Hon 'ble Court directed to implead the said Suresh Singh Gautam,' Sandesh .lain, Sandeep .lain and Rakesh .lain in the array of respondents in the above case." From the perusal of the order sheet dated 21.10.2005. no such directions were issued by this Court. The order sheet dated 21.10.2005 reads thus. "Shri Sharad Verma. learned counsel for the respondent No.2 seeks time to file reply. A weeks time as prayed for is granted. List on 8.11.2005. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till next date of hearing. C.C. within 3 days." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of hearing the Court directed the petitioner to implead the aforesaid persons as respondents, as from the perusal of Annexure P-5 the aforesaid persons were necessary parties for the decision of the case. The contention of the petitioner may be correct but the manner in which the application has been drafted in which the petitioner has stated that at the instances of the Court. this application has been filed. but has also mentioned the name of the learned Judge in the application. The aforesaid manner in which the application has been drafted by the petitioner cannot be appreciated. If during the course of the arguments it was found that the aforesaid persons are necessary parties and without imp-leading those parties this petition itself was not tenable or there may be some deliberation in this regard, but the order-sheet does not say so. Apart from this the petitioner has no right to say that as per the directions of the Court. specifying the name of learned judge this application has been filed. It appears that the petitioner has tried to say that the Judge was inclined to direct the petitioner to implead the aforesaid persons as party, which fact does not find place from the perusal of the order dated 21.10.2005. specifying the name of learned judge this application has been filed. It appears that the petitioner has tried to say that the Judge was inclined to direct the petitioner to implead the aforesaid persons as party, which fact does not find place from the perusal of the order dated 21.10.2005. Anyhow the manner in which the application has been drafted smells something, which reflects on the Judge which is not warranted, not required, nor necessary, but shows prejudiced or viced mind of the petitioner who unwillingly tiled the application, throwing all the responsibility on the Judge, which cannot be appreciated and this deserves to be deprecated. Until and unless there is something special which on quarry can be explained, there is no necessity at all to plead the name of Judge or show the responsibility of Judge in the like manner. Even otherwise pleading a .Judge by name is 'not proper and create embarrassment for the Court and Judge concell1. Petitioner has exceeded to its limits in tiling the application in the aforesaid manner, and this petition which is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground, that the petitioner has tried to implead the learned Judge in the matter by stating something which does not find place in the case or in the order-sheet. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find it a case to be dismissed by imposing cost on the petitioner. Before dismissal of the petition and imposing the cost, leall1ed counsel for the petitioner was asked whether he has to say something or explain in this regard. He submitted that it was not intentional and is a bona fide mistake and he may he permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh petition and tendered his apology. Principles of drafting require that a case is to be filed completely. If there is lacuna or shortcomings in the pleadings or in the petition, or there is serious defect like non-imp-leading necessary party, and this fact comes to the notice of the Court or pointed out by the Court, then it is to impart justice, the party is allowed an opportunity to rectify it, by filing an appropriate application, rather dismissing the petition without extending the opportunity. The Court or Judge has no interest in the matter, except to do justice in the case. The Court or Judge has no interest in the matter, except to do justice in the case. Court or Judge are impartial, it is the system which works. But naming a Judge in the application shows that it is something 'extra ordinary', i.e. the Judge shown some interest or the party was compelled to do some thing, which party was not willing. Otherwise there is no occasion to mention the name of the Judge in the application in the like manner in which it is pleaded. There is no necessity at all to mention the name of Judge in the application. This shows something extra or ill-temper or viceness of a person drafting the application. Until and unless this reflects from the case, or justifiable on facts this deserves to be deprecated seriously, so that in future such act may not be repeated. Considering aforesaid, that the petitioner has exceeded to its limit by mentioning the name of learned Judge in the application, while there was no such direction or occasion or reason to mention the name of the leall1ed .Judge, I dismiss this petition. on the aforesaid ground. Considering the apology tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to impose cost on the petitioner, as proposed earlier. In the interest of justice, that because of the aforesaid conduct the client should not suffer, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file fresh properly drafted petition.