ORDER Sujoy Paul, J. 1. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under: 2. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24/08/2011, whereby application preferred under Order 18 Rule 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is rejected. 3. Shri Mahesh Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below should have allowed the said application. He relied on 2007 (1) M.P.W.N. 83 [Laxman Singh and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others] (reported in toto) and placed heavy reliance on Para 3 of this judgment. He submits that after amendment in the C.P.C. from 1st July, 2002, the only substitution is that instead of recording oral statement of the witness, now it is required to file a written affidavit. But, this amendment also nowhere prescribes that all such affidavits should be filed together. On the strength of this, Shri Goyal submits that the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 4. Per Contra Shri Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel has supported the order and submitted that the petitioner's similar application for taking affidavits was rejected by the Court below on 20/07/2011. He further submits that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, no interference is warranted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is well established and well defined. This Court is not obliged to sit as an appellate Court to re-appreciate the arguments. In absence of any procedural impropriety or jurisdictional error, this Court is not obliged to interference. Another reason is possible, is not a ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. The petitioner in this petition has not challenged the order dated 20/07/2011 and has challenged only the order dated 24/08/2011. A perusal of order dated 20/07/2011 shows that the petitioner preferred an application for grant of time for filing affidavit of witnesses. This prayer was declined by the Court below. In absence of challenge to this order, there is no question of interference in the impugned order. A perusal of order dated 20/07/2011 shows that the petitioner preferred an application for grant of time for filing affidavit of witnesses. This prayer was declined by the Court below. In absence of challenge to this order, there is no question of interference in the impugned order. Apart from this, the order sheet dated 14/10/2011 (12.00 P.M.) shows that an application preferred before the Court below, wherein certain allegations were made against the learned Judge and it was stated before the Court below that time be granted for preferring an appropriate application for transfer of the matter to some other Court because there is no likelihood of getting justice from the Court below. The Court below has declined the said request. 8. On a specific question asked by this Court whether any request for transfer of matter was made by the petitioner on or after 14/10/2011 by the petitioner, Shri Goyal learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that no such application has been preferred. Thus, it appears that it was an attempt of browbeating the Bench to get a desired relief. By taking judicial notice of this act, I deem it proper to quote a passage from a recent Supreme Court judgment in this regard reported in (2011) 7 SCC 776 [Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh] which reads as under: 17.......... The superior Courts have a duty to protect the reputation of judicial officers of subordinate courts, taking note of the growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by unscrupulous practising advocates, who either fail to secure desired orders or do not succeed in browbeating for achieving ulterior purpose. Such an issue touches upon the independence of not only the judicial officers but brings the question of protecting the reputation of the institution as a whole." 18. The dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. The Bench and the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations on trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none. The dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. The Bench and the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations on trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none. "Liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary." A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client maligning the reputation of judicial officers merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, would cause a very serious damage to the institution of judiciary. An advocate in a profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of the society and justice system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable The above passage contains message and nothing more is required to be said on the subject. 9. Considering the aforesaid and law laid by Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , I find no reason to interfere in the matter. The order passed by the Court below is neither without jurisdiction nor suffers from any procedural impropriety or perversity. The judgment cited by Shri Goyal, has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this view of the matter, since the Court below has assigned cogent reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 10. In the result, petition is dismissed. No costs.