JUDGMENT 1. - Instant miscellaneous application has been tiled by applicant Shri Sudhir Pareek, presently posted as Addl. District Judge, Bali. under Section 151. C. P. C. with the prayer to recall remarks/observations made against him in the judgment dated 13- 9-2011 passed in S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 168/2011 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 2. The judgment dated 13-9-2011 in the aforesaid appeal was rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Chandra Joshi. Since brother Justice Joshi has ceased to hold office upon superannuation the case is listed before this Bench. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that observations made against the applicant have come up on the record against the principles of natural justice because no notice or opportunity was given to the applicant prior to passing impugned observations against him with regard to showing negligence in the proceedings of the case when he was working as Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2. Jodhpur in between the period commencing from 11-8-2010 to 27-1-2011. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of the Court towards judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of V. K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi & others, reported in (2008) 17 SCC 538 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2455) and submits that in the above judgment certain principles of law have been propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in which it has been held that duty of the higher Courts to modify or set aside orders which are contrary to law or facts of the case is one of the most important functions of the superior Courts. The Indian legal system acknowledges the fallibility of Judges and therefore, provides for appeals and revisions. However, Judges of superior Courts while discharging their duty ought to be extremely careful before passing imputations, strictures and remarks against subordinate judicial officers. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention towards the fact that without providing an opportunity of hearing certain observations have been made in the last para of the judgment dated 13-9-2011 passed by co-ordinate Bench in S. B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 168/2011. Therefore. in the interest of justice while following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in V. K. Jain's case (supra). Therefore. in the interest of justice while following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in V. K. Jain's case (supra). (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2455) , the remarks /observations made against the applicant may be recalled. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, I have perused last para of judgment dated 13-9-2011 passed in S. B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 168/2011 by the co-ordinate Bench. 7. Following observation is made in the last para of the aforesaid judgment dated 13-9-2011: "Before parting with the appeal. I think it proper to mention that the way in which the Presiding Officer i.e. Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2. Jodhpur who remained posted from 11-8-2010 to 27-1-2011 were also negligent about the proceedings of the case and they did not even take pain to peruse the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and further to see the record that whether the compliance of the order has been made in the right way or not? Therefore, copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of this Court to place it before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate consideration on administrative side as His Lordship deems fit." 8. I have perused the record of the case and perused the above para of the judgment dated 13-9-2011 in which it is revealed that no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the applicant before passing the observations with regard to negligence of the applicant. It is also revealed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in v. K. Jain's case was not brought to the notice of the Court. 9. In the case of V. K. Jain (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2455) (supra), while dealing with the same situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following principles in para 58 of ; the judgment: "58. When we examine the facts of the instant case in the light of the judicial decisions spreading over a century, the following principles of law can be culled out : I. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary in the public mind, for whatever reason, is' the greatest threat to the independence of judiciary. II. Judicial discipline and restraint are imperative for the orderly administration of justice. III. II. Judicial discipline and restraint are imperative for the orderly administration of justice. III. Judicial decorum makes it imperative that the Court's judgments and orders must be confined to the facts and the legal position involved in the cases and the Courts should not deviate from propriety, moderation and sobriety. IV. Majesty of the Court is not displayed solely in cracking the whip on mistakes, inadvertent errors or lapses, but by persuasive reasoning so that the similar errors and mistakes are not repeated by the judicial officers. v. Majesty of the Court would be enhanced by practising discipline and self-restraint in discharging of all judicial functions. All actions of a Judge must be judicious in character. VI. The role of superior Courts is like a friend, phi lospher and guide of the judiciary subordinate to it. The judicial officers have to be treated with parental care and affection. VII. The approach of the superior Courts ought to be correctional and not to be intended to harm or ruining the judicial career of the officers. VIII. The superior Courts should always bear in mind that the judicial officer is not before it and should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures, derogatory remarks and scathing criticism. The passing of such an order without affording a hearing to the judicial officer is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. IX. The superior Courts should always keep in mind that disparaging and derogatory remarks against the judicial officer would cause incalculable harm of a permanent character having the potentiality of spoiling the judicial career of the officer concerned. X. The superior Courts should convey its messages to the judicial officers concerned through a process of reasoning, highlighting the correct provisions of law, precedents and proper analysis of evidence and material on record. but rarely by passing harsh and derogatory remarks. XI. The superior Courts must always keep in mind that it is a Herculean task for the judicial officer to get the derogatory remarks empunged by the superior Court. He is compelled to take assistance from lawyers and such a practitioner may be appearing before him. It is embarrassing, humilitating, time consuming and an expensive exercise. XII. The superior Courts must always keep in mind that the much cherished judicial independence must not be presented only from outside but from within, by those who form the integral part of the judicial system. It is embarrassing, humilitating, time consuming and an expensive exercise. XII. The superior Courts must always keep in mind that the much cherished judicial independence must not be presented only from outside but from within, by those who form the integral part of the judicial system. Damage from within has much larger and greater potential for harm than danger from outside. We alone in the judicial family can take care of it. XIII. The supreior Courts should not use strong. derogatory, disparaging and carping language while criticising the judicial officers. They must always keep in mind that, like all other human beings, the judicial officers are also not infallible. Any remarks passed against them may result in incalculable harm resulting in grave injustice. XIV. The superior Court's Judges should not be, like a loose cannon, ready to inflict indiscriminate damages whenever they function in judicial capacity. XV. The superior Court's should keep in mind that infliction of uncalled for, unmerited and undeserved remarks clearly amount to abuse of the process of Court. XVI. The superior Courts should not allow themselves even momentarily the latitude of ignoring judicial precaution and propriety. XVII. It must be remembered that the subordinate judicial officers at times work under charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks and more correctly up to their nostrils. XVIII. To err is human and no one is infalliable. A Judge who has not committed an error is yet to be horn. Judicial decoruin has to he maintained at all times and even where criticism is justified. It must be in a language of utmost restraint always keeping in view that the person making the commencement is also fallible. XIX. Judges of the superior Courts have a duty and obligation to ensure judicial discipline and respect for judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when Judges at the lower level are criticised intemperately and castigated publicly. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges and provides for appeals and revisions. XX. It is the duty and obligation of the Judges of the superior Courts to ensure that independence of judiciary is not compromised and every judicial officer should feel that he can freely and fearlessly give expression to his own opinion. This is absolutely imperative in maintaining the independence of the judiciary. XX. It is the duty and obligation of the Judges of the superior Courts to ensure that independence of judiciary is not compromised and every judicial officer should feel that he can freely and fearlessly give expression to his own opinion. This is absolutely imperative in maintaining the independence of the judiciary. XXI. The supreior Courts Judges must always bear in mind that no greater damage can be caused to the administration of justice and to the confidence of people when Judges at superior Courts express lack of faith either in ability or intergity of subordinate Judges." 10. Upon perusal of the aforesaid directives adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it emerges that duty and obligation has been cast upon the Judges of the superior Courts to ensure judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned to ensure that independence of judiciary is not compromised and every judicial officer should feel that he can freely and fearlessly give expression to his own opinion. 11. In this case, admittedly no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant judicial officer who was holding the post of Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jodhpur during the relevant period. Therefore, obviously the observations are not in consonance with the directives laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, required to be recalled. Consequently, this application filed under Section 151, C. P. C. is hereby accepted and while following the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. K. Jains case (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2455) (supra) remarks /observations incorporated in the judgment dated 13-9-2011 passed by co-ordinate Bench in S 13. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 168/2011 against the applicant Shri Sudhir Pareek, the then Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur are hereby recalled.Order accordingly. *******