M. R. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. P. C. Kavina, learned Senior advocate with Mr. S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant - original plaintiff. Mr. Mihir thakore, learned Senior Advocate with mr. S. N. Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 9 and 10 and mrs. Ketty Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 8 herein, who are main contesting parties so far as present Appeal from Order and litigation is concerned. ( 2 ) PRESENT Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant - original plaintiff challenging the impugned order dated 13. 07. 2009 passed by the learned 3rd additional Sr. Civil Judge, Surat passed below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 2009, by which the learned Trial Court has rejected said application submitted by the appellant - original plaintiff for interim injunction during the pendency and final disposal of the suit. ( 3 ) ON considering the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court and having heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it appeared to the Court that what is weighed with the learned trial Court is the opinion of the learned Retd. Judge and therefore, to avoid any further allegation of bias, this Court suggested that let impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding the application Exh. 5 afresh without considering opinion of the learned Retd. Judge. To that learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have jointly submitted under the instructions from their respective clients that let impugned order passed by the learned trial court below Exh. 5 be quashed and set aside without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties and without further entering into merits of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits and let the learned trial Court pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits without considering opinion of the learned Retd. Judge and give his own findings. ( 4 ) IN view of broad consensus between the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties recorded herein above and without further entering into merits of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits in favour of the either parties, impugned order dated 13. 07. Judge and give his own findings. ( 4 ) IN view of broad consensus between the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties recorded herein above and without further entering into merits of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits in favour of the either parties, impugned order dated 13. 07. 2009 passed by the learned 3rd additional Sr. Civil Judge, Surat passed below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial court for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits without considering opinion of the learned Retd. Judge upon which his earlier order was passed and give his own findings considering rival submissions. As agreed between the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of application Exh. 5 at the earliest but not later than 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of present order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits in favour of either parties and it is ultimately for the learned trial court to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits and impugned order has been set aside only on the aforesaid grounds which is recorded herein above. ( 5 ) BEFORE parting with the present order, a word of caution to the Judicial Officers as well as litigants. A judgment is expression of opinion of Judge or Magistrate arrived at after due consideration of evidence and all arguments, if any, advanced before him. A judgment should be based strictly on the evidence on record and not on outside evidence, further acquired. A Judge should not go out of the record, raise his findings on matters within his personal knowledge and conjunctures. Similarly, nothing extra should be weighed with the Judge and judge has to deliver judgment on his own, forming his own findings on appreciation of evidence and considering decisions cited. Similarly, all judicial functionaries have necessarily to have a unflinching character to decide a case with an unbiased mind and an essential requirement of judicial adjudication is that the Judge is impartial and neutral and is in a position to apply his mind objectively to the facts of the case put up before him. Similarly, all judicial functionaries have necessarily to have a unflinching character to decide a case with an unbiased mind and an essential requirement of judicial adjudication is that the Judge is impartial and neutral and is in a position to apply his mind objectively to the facts of the case put up before him. If he is predisposed or suffers from prejudices or has a biased mind, he disqualifies himself from acting as a Judge. In the present case, opinion of the retd. Judge of Supreme Court was produced before the learned trial Court and learned trial Court while deciding application Exh. 5 has not only considered the same but he has based his order on the basis of such opinion. Procedure adopted by the learned trial Court relying upon and deciding application Exh. 5 relying upon opinion of retd. Judge of Supreme Court is highly improper. As observed by the Hon'ble supreme Court even a Judge is not supposed to import his own private knowledge. Similarly, a Judge is also not required to consider any opinion which is not forming part of the evidence and/or even otherwise he has to decide the case on applying his own mind and on appreciation of evidence. If he considers opinion of retd. Judge of Supreme Court or any other judge and decides the case, in that case, it can be said that he is influenced by such opinion and his decision based upon such opinion can be said to be biased decision. 'justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done'. Therefore, in a case where any opinion of Retd. Judge or other Judge is placed before him or it is placed on record, in fact it is his duty to see that such opinion is not forming part of the record and it is not produced on record. As such to produce opinion of Retd. Judge of any other opinion in the judicial proceedings by any litigant is highly improper and should be deprecated. If any such opinion is produced on record, it is to be held that it is only with a view to influence Judicial Officer which is not permissible. ( 6 ) WITH these, present Appeal from order is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. In view of disposal of Appeal from order, no order in Civil Application. Direct service is permitted. ( 6 ) WITH these, present Appeal from order is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. In view of disposal of Appeal from order, no order in Civil Application. Direct service is permitted. (Appeal is allowed)