ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— This is an appeal presented by the dissatisfied claimants who had claimed before the Fast Track & Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal at Kundapura in MVC No. 325 of 2001 that their breadwinner one Kishan Hegde had died in an accident that took place on public road and the cause of the death of the person was the accident caused by driver of a motor vehicle and therefore had claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 30,30,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kundapura. 2. The Tribunal, on examining the matter which had come to be contested only by the insurance company as driver and owner of the vehicle had been set ex parte due to their non-appearance before the tribunal, has quantified compensation payable in favour of the dependent claimants at total sum of Rs. 97,500/- which is as under: (a) Loss of Dependency Rs. 54,492.00 (b) Transportation Expenses Rs. 1,000.00 (c) Funeral and Obsequies Expenses Rs. 10,000.00 (d) Loss of Consortium Rs. 7,000.00 (e) Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 10,000.00 (f) Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 97,492.00 It is rounded Rs. 97,500.00 3. It is aggrieved by this quantification, complaining that it is rather inadequate, the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. The appeal papers have not been presented in a proper manner as is contemplated under the rules of the High Court i.e. the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 governing presentation of such appeals. Therefore, the registry on noticing the following four defects, had notified the same for correction by counsel who has presented the appeal, within three weeks as per the office note dated 29.6.2010. 1. Out of time IA filed Difference amount to be correctly stated in valuation para. 2. Actual amount awarded to be stated in synopsis & valuation para. 3. Vakalath to be accepted on behalf of minor. 4. II set to be filed. Needful by 3 weeks. 5. Some advocate claiming to act on behalf of the counsel for the Appellant, it appears thereafter had made an endorsement on the order sheet, inter alia, indicating that the Appellants are now prepared to restrict their claim for total compensation from Rs. 30,30,000/- to Rs. 4. II set to be filed. Needful by 3 weeks. 5. Some advocate claiming to act on behalf of the counsel for the Appellant, it appears thereafter had made an endorsement on the order sheet, inter alia, indicating that the Appellants are now prepared to restrict their claim for total compensation from Rs. 30,30,000/- to Rs. 14,99,999/-and in the wake of such restricted amount being claimed by way of relief in the appeal, there is no need to file second set of appeal papers in the registry. 6. In the wake of such endorsement made on the order sheet, as on 3.9.2010, reading as under: Submitted: In the above MFA, the counsel for the Appellant has restricted the value of the appeal from Rs. 24,34,300/- to Rs. 14,99,999/-. Hence the above MFA lies before Hon'ble (SJ). Registry thought it proper to list the appeal for orders before this Bench recording, Post MFA for orders before (DB) reg: Posting of the above appeal before the appropriate court since the value is restricted to Rs. 14,99,999/-. And below with a note that the 'second set is not filed'. 7. Along with is placed a memo for posting filed by Advocate for the Appellants reading as under: MEMO FOR POSTING In view of the extreme urgency in the above matter this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the office to post the above matter for Admission on 06/09/2010. Hence this memo in the interest of justice and equity. Bangalore Date: 03.09.2010 Sd/- Advocate for Petitioner (MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY) and said to have been signed by one Amlok, Advocate, though the typed portion below indicates it is Advocate for Petitioner [Mahesh Kiran Shetty] and such is the submission of Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, Advocate who has appeared before us today, this is a memo moved before court Hall No. 13 for posting the matter for admission as it is indicated in the memo that it was in view of extreme urgency the matter was required to be listed for admission etc.,. 8. It is in this background, this matter had come up before this Court on 6.9.2010. 8. It is in this background, this matter had come up before this Court on 6.9.2010. We were quite surprised nay shocked to notice that the memorandum of appeal which had been filed before this Court on 15.4.2010 had been meddled, particularly, in paragraph-13 regarding valuation and the following paragraph regarding prayer has been altered, in the sense, some handwritten portions are inserted in the typed version and handwritten version reads as under: Now she claims Rs. 14,99,999/-, hence restricted claim amount in this Court and the enhancement sought for, which was originally Rs. 24,34,300/- is scored off and later written in hand to indicate the figure of Rs. 14,04,299/-. Even in the prayer column towards the end of the prayer the typed amount of Rs. 30,30,000/- is scored off and through handwritten, insertion it is restricted to Rs. 14,99,999/-. 9. When the matter had come up before this Court yesterday, one Ms. Sucheta, Advocate appeared before us said to be on behalf of the Appellants and submitted that the matter should go before the appropriate Bench i.e., a single Bench of this Court in view of the altered valuation in the memorandum of appeal. 10. On query, we found that the Advocate who appeared before us, was not one who had either filed vakalath for the Appellant or had carried out any corrections in the memorandum of appeal and it was not known under what authority she was making submissions on behalf of the Appellants. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to today, indicating to the counsel who had appeared before us that it is more appropriate for the Advocate who had prepared and filed the memorandum of appeal on behalf of the Appellants to appear and makes suitable submission in the matter. 11. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to today, indicating to the counsel who had appeared before us that it is more appropriate for the Advocate who had prepared and filed the memorandum of appeal on behalf of the Appellants to appear and makes suitable submission in the matter. 11. Today, Sri Mahesh Kiran Shetty, counsel who had prepared and filed the appeal has appeared before us and submits that it was a mistake to have so carried out the corrections to the memorandum of appeal and submits that corrections of this nature should not have been carried out without the permission of the court and without filing a suitable application for amendment of memorandum of appeal but by mistake corrections have been carried out; that the corrections have been carried out by one of his colleagues whose name he is unable to recollect nor is he able to identify even after perusing the handwritten portion of the valuation paragraph and the prayer column in the memorandum of appeal. 12. We find rather strange things happening in the registry of this Court. We are not sure as to whether there is any proper supervision and regulation of presentation of the appeal papers and thereafter for placing the papers before the court. All and sundry cannot meddle with the court papers and even an authorized Advocate appearing for the litigant can carry out any corrections or alter the memorandum of appeal, only after following the proper procedure and as regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure read with the High Court rules. 13. In this regard, we have examined Rule 14 of chapter-XII of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 [for short 'the Rules'] relating to presentation and examination of the papers and reading as under: CHAPTER - XII Presentation and Examination of Papers 14. (1) The Registrar after reading the report of the Examiner and looking into the papers examined wherever necessary shall if all the papers are in order, direct that the appeal petition or other matter be admitted to register and numbered. (1) The Registrar after reading the report of the Examiner and looking into the papers examined wherever necessary shall if all the papers are in order, direct that the appeal petition or other matter be admitted to register and numbered. If there are any defects, the Registrar shall direct such amendments or corrections in the papers as may be necessary be carried out or direct rectification of the defects or compliance with such requisitions as he may consider necessary in the circumstances of the case by the party presenting the same or his advocate in the office of the concerned Registrar within three weeks from the date of notifying such defects. The Registrar may, from time to time, extend the time or period allowed by him for (Compliance of requisitions or rectification or defects) by such periods as may be necessary not exceeding six weeks in the aggregate. (2) A list of papers (Where defects are pointed out) shall be put up on the Notice Board giving particulars of the same and name of party presenting the same or his Advocate. The time fixed by the Registrar for (Compliance of the requisitions or rectification of the defects) shall be counted from the date on which such list is so put up on the Notice Board. 14. Perhaps if the correction to the memorandum of appeal should have been one which could fall within the scope of this rule, we could have accepted the submission and the explanation offered by learned Counsel for the Appellants. But, unfortunately, we find many wrong things even obnoxious things happening in the registry and it is high time that the registry is properly streamlined and supervised by the responsible officers of the High Court, to ensure that interest of the hapless litigant who depends on the professional services rendered by lawyers do not suffer and the litigants are not taken for a ride. 15. In the instant case, we notice that as originally presented, the memorandum of appeal had indicated the valuation of the claim to be as claimed before the Tribunal and has indicated that value to be Rs. 30,30,000/- in the memorandum of appeal, and the enhancement sought for to be at a sum of Rs. 24,34,300/- in this appeal for which the appeal has been presented. 30,30,000/- in the memorandum of appeal, and the enhancement sought for to be at a sum of Rs. 24,34,300/- in this appeal for which the appeal has been presented. But, later, obviously to avoid filing of the second set of appeal papers and also perhaps to shop around for forum as valuation below Rs. 15 lakhs would automatically take the matter before a single Bench of this Court, whomsoever has carried out corrections as identity is not established before us either authorized or not authorized, has managed to insert the handwritten portion to ensure that the valuation is so reduced as to not only to avoid filing of second set of appeal papers but also to ensure that the matter is listed before a single Judge Bench, for admission. 16. We find from the vakalath filed along with the memorandum of appeal, only Mr. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, Advocate who has appeared before us, has accepted the vakalath and there is no other Advocate authorized by the Appellants who could handle the matter nor meddle with the appeal papers. 17. More importantly, once the appeal papers are presented in the registry of this Court, it is no more the right of the Appellants or Advocate presenting the appeal to keep tinkering with the appeal papers as it becomes a court record. A court record cannot be meddled with by anyone not even by the Advocate who has filed power for the litigant except to the extent as permitted in Rule 14 of the Rules, extracted above. 18. We find, in the present case, what has been done is much beyond the scope of Rule 14 of the Rules. We also express our anguish that inspite of cautioning the concerned Registrar of this Court time and again that there is something radically wrong in the registry, no corrective measures appear to have been taken so far. 18. We find, in the present case, what has been done is much beyond the scope of Rule 14 of the Rules. We also express our anguish that inspite of cautioning the concerned Registrar of this Court time and again that there is something radically wrong in the registry, no corrective measures appear to have been taken so far. Allowing some Advocate who is not even authorized on behalf of the Appellant to meddle with the valuation part which is not a mere arithmetical correction, but alteration of a substantial nature in the memorandum of appeal with a definite intention to take away the matter being listed before a division bench of this Court by reducing the valuation and to have it before the single Judge Bench, obviously indicates a design or scheme and would only bring discredit to the institution and sends a wrong signal and message that any and sundry can meddle with the court record. 19. Permitting such things to go unnoticed or overlooking will not be in the interest of institution. Moreover, a variation of the present nature in the valuation and restricting the relief to a party of the relief originally claimed is a substantive change in the memorandum of appeal and if at all, can be achieved only by an amendment of the memorandum of appeal and by filing suitable application, for such a purpose in respect of which, only this Court is competent to pass orders and not an order made in the registry or permitted by a clerk/Assistant working in the High Court Registry. 20. The appeal is by the kith and kin of a deceased person and even a lawyer for the Appellant has no competence to reduce the extent of relief sought for in the appeal, without a valid authorization and a proper consent from the Appellants. Moreover with interest of minor children also being involved, duty of this Court is all the more onerous. That has obviously not happened in the present case. 21. Moreover with interest of minor children also being involved, duty of this Court is all the more onerous. That has obviously not happened in the present case. 21. In the circumstances, while we direct the Registrar [Judicial] of this Court to take note of these developments and to ensure that commensurate remedial measures are taken in the registry forthwith, and also to issue strict instructions with regard to the so called corrections or modifications of the memorandum of appeal being carried out by any person even by authorized persons also and if such corrections amounts to a substantial variation in the valuation of the memorandum of appeal, not to permit the same, particularly valuation being a substantial aspect of the appeal, but to insist upon the counsel who has presented the appeal papers to come up with suitable application and also to bring these developments leading to the passing of the order to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, for ensuring remedial measures in the working of the registry of the High Court, on the administrative side. 22. We also direct the Registrar General of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Bar Council of Karnataka and Bar Council of India to ensure that proper professional standards are maintained in legal profession so that litigant public are provided with quality legal service and are not taken for a ride. We find that such professional misconduct on the part of the members of the Bar results in victimizing the poor litigant for whose benefit the legal system exists. 23. It is high time professional people pull up their socks and start functioning in a professional manner rather than to sacrifice the interest of the litigants and making them scapegoats for all follies of professional people. These are all matters which call for immediate remedial and corrective measures at all levels. 24. However, in the interest of justice and in the interest of the Appellants with whom alone are we concerned, while we reject the submission of Mr. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, Advocate for restricting the valuation in the memorandum of appeal from Rs. 30,30,000/- as originally indicated and to scale down the relief claimed in the appeal to Rs. 24. However, in the interest of justice and in the interest of the Appellants with whom alone are we concerned, while we reject the submission of Mr. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, Advocate for restricting the valuation in the memorandum of appeal from Rs. 30,30,000/- as originally indicated and to scale down the relief claimed in the appeal to Rs. 14,99,999/-, we also direct the Registrar General of this Court to find out the circumstances under which such things would have happened and also to ensure suitable remedial action to be taken not only against erring officials, but also if any Advocate is found wanting in his professional work to bring the matter to the notice of the Bar Council of Karnataka and to ensure remedial measures are taken in the registry promptly and such instances are not repeated time and again. 25. This appeal is adjourned by one week to enable the Advocate to take such steps, as are necessary.