ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. In these writ petitions, following reliefs are sought for:- "1. Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Court below; 'to Summon the "Original purchase deed" from "The Manager; Kundapura Vyavasaya Sahakara Sangha Niyamita; Kundapura" for "Marking" the same as exhibit. 2. Direct the Court below, to refrain from any "Misconduct" hereafter; and to conduct the case judiciously and expeditiously; by strictly following legal procedures at all times. 3. Direct the District and Sessions Judge at Udupi; to issue "Certified copy" of documents that are pertaining to the previous suit; which was filed by the respondent; against the petitioner vide O.S. No. 62 of 2005." Heard Sri Subhaschandra Shetty, party-in-person and Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. 2. Respondent herein has filed a suit for perpetual injunction on the file of Civil Judge, Kundapura, which was numbered as O.S. No. 290 of 2012. Subsequently, same is said to have been transferred to III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udupi and as such, it has been renumbered as O.S. No. 160 of 2014. On service of suit summons, defendant 1-writ petitioner is said to have appeared, filed his written statement and contested the suit. On the basis of pleadings of parties, issues have been framed and matter is at the stage of trial. He is alleging the procedure adopted by Trial Court in conducting the proceedings is against procedural law and as such has sought for the reliefs noted hereinabove. 3. The grievance of writ petitioner is that respondent is illegally laying a claim for 24 cents land in Sy. No. 28/7 of Voderhobli, Kundapura TMC (hereinafter referred to as "suit schedule property") based on a fabricated document and the purported purchase deed dated 13-5-1965 is shrouded with mystery and it is a fabricated and concocted document. It is also contended that field map relating to Sy. No. 28 produced by respondent/plaintiff is fabricated and no reasons have been assigned by plaintiff for non-production of original purchase deed. It is further contended by Sri Subhaschandra Shetty, party-in-person that he had complained to the Revenue Authorities, who admitted their mistakes and thereafter to cover up their mistakes and lapses, documents have been subsequently fabricated and these aspects have not been taken note of by the Trial Court. 4. It is further contended by Sri Subhaschandra Shetty, party-in-person that he had complained to the Revenue Authorities, who admitted their mistakes and thereafter to cover up their mistakes and lapses, documents have been subsequently fabricated and these aspects have not been taken note of by the Trial Court. 4. He would submit that intermittently respondent/plaintiff filed the documents before the Court along with memo and same were not accompanied by an application and these haying been highlighted by writ petitioner/defendant had resulted in Trial Court directing respondent/plaintiff to file an application to take the documents on record and as such, at the instance of Court respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. VII, dated 30-11-2013, Annexure-S and Trial Court without affording any opportunity to the petitioner or calling upon the writ petitioner to file objections, proceeded to record as though defendant was absent on the date of hearing and allowed said application by order dated 30-11-2013. It is also contended that fake documents have been marked despite objections being raised by writ petitioner/defendant and despite interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. VIII, dated 20-1-2014 being filed by petitioner-first defendant for summoning original purchase deed from Bank, Annexure-U, same has been erroneously rejected by order dated 20-1-2014 and only on complaint being made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 15-2-2014 citing the anomaly and impropriety during the course of conducting trial as per complaint dated 15-2-2014, Annexure-W. Matter came to be transferred from Kundapura Court to Udupi Court and even thereafter the transferee Court has also been acting contrary to procedural law and as such, he has sought for reliefs as noted hereinabove. 5. Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned Counsel appearing for sole respondent would submit that there is no error committed by the Court below and if any order has been passed contrary to established principles of law, then petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same and reliefs sought for in the present writ petition is outside the scope of suit and as such, same cannot be granted and hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petition. 6. 6. Having heard the petitioner-party-in-person and respondent's Counsel, it is noticed that petitioner has no doubt objected to marking of the documents during the course of trial, as could be seen from the deposition namely, deposition recorded on 20-12-2013, Annexure-T. Said record of Trial Court would also indicate that objections raised to by the writ petitioner/defendant has been overruled by Trial Court. When a judicial order has been passed by the Court below, it is for the petitioner to take such steps to challenge the said order. He has not done so and as such, in the present writ petition the correctness or otherwise of the marking of said document cannot be gone into, even otherwise it is open for the petitioner to challenge the same in an appeal in the event an adverse decree being passed against him. No opinion is expressed on this issue. Same is kept open. 7. Petitioner has also pointed out certain procedural irregularities that has occasioned before the Court below and in support of this contention he has very heavily relied upon the rejection of interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. VIII, which is available on record at Annexure-U which would indicate that writ petitioner had sought to summon the original purchase deed dated 13-5-1965 from the custody of the Manager, Kundapura Vyavasaya Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Kundapura for marking and keeping it in a safe custody. Said application filed under Order XVI, Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be rejected vide order dated 3-3-2014. 8. Being aggrieved by this petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No. 14005 of 2014 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having heard the petitioner-in-person, had observed as under: "3. I have heard petitioner 1-in-person for about 25 minutes and he addressed the arguments on merits of the suit, though he was repeatedly told to focus on the order, impugned in the petition. Insofar as the......dismissed." Having observed as noticed hereinabove Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 8-7-2014 dismissed the writ petition. The copy of said order has been made available by the learned Counsel for respondent during the course of arguments in these proceedings. Thus, order of rejection of I.A. No. VIII as on date has become final. Insofar as the......dismissed." Having observed as noticed hereinabove Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 8-7-2014 dismissed the writ petition. The copy of said order has been made available by the learned Counsel for respondent during the course of arguments in these proceedings. Thus, order of rejection of I.A. No. VIII as on date has become final. In that view of the matter, prayer No. 1 sought for in the present writ petition cannot be entertained for not only reasons aforestated, but also for reasons that the matter has already reached finality. 9. Prayer No. 3 sought for relates to issuance of certified copy of documents that are pertaining to previous suits, which was filed by respondent against the petitioner in O.S. No. 62 of 2005. It would be needless to state that if an application is made by the petitioner before jurisdictional Court, where records of O.S. No. 62 of 2005 are available same is to be issued in accordance with Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 and the Principal District Judge, Udupi, shall ensure that there is no breach committed by the Officials either delaying the issuance of certified copies to which writ petitioner may be entitled to or issuing an endorsement by rejecting the copy of application if they so deserve by assigning specific reasons thereof so as to enable the petitioner-in-person to challenge the said endorsement. Registry is hereby directed to send portion of this order (namely this paragraph) to the jurisdictional Principal District Judge for taking necessary steps in this regard. 10. Be that as it may. Now turning my attention back to Prayer No. 2 it would indicate that petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Court below to refrain itself from committing any "misconduct" and also for a further direction to conduct the case "judiciously and expeditiously" by strictly following legal procedures at all times. 11. In support of this prayer petitioner has averred in the writ petition, which is supported by an affidavit to the following effect: "15. The Court below had on ..... by the petitioner. Again strangely and falsely, it was recorded in the order sheet that the petitioner was absent. It was only on those particular dates of crucial steps/orders; i.e. 7-10-2013 and 30-11-2013; the learned Judge falsely recorded in the Order sheets that the petitioner was absent continuously on those dates only. Obviously, the Court below ..... by the petitioner. Again strangely and falsely, it was recorded in the order sheet that the petitioner was absent. It was only on those particular dates of crucial steps/orders; i.e. 7-10-2013 and 30-11-2013; the learned Judge falsely recorded in the Order sheets that the petitioner was absent continuously on those dates only. Obviously, the Court below ..... in dark all through." In the grounds urged in support of the averments made in paragraphs 1 to 22 petitioner has stated as under: "8. The petitioner submits that the Court below has committed misconduct by manipulating the "cross-examination document". This document consisting of four page; which the petitioner had gone through on the same day; after the respondent had signed those page. These said four page document was independent; was not the continuation of the deposition document. But, when the petitioner ....... by the Hon'ble Judge outright. 9. The respondent further submits that in major steps; like "Marking of documents; cross-examination and I.A. No. VIII filed for Summoning the original purchase deed"; the Court below has been consistently and persistently aligned with the respondent; and has been bulldozing procedural aspect; and also adopted dubious ways to favour the respondent illegally. 11. The petitioner further submits ...... as his evidence; the Court below would record his absence in order sheet and make the very documents disappear. 12. The petitioner further submits that ....... "Fake documents". The successive Judges have favored the respondent illegally in many ways; which has rendered the petitioner with no legal options; but to fall prey to such kind of acts. The petitioner......fake land records." (Emphasis supplied) 12. It should be well-remembered that Judges by reason of their office would be precluded from entering into any controversy nor can they enter into such arena. A judgment or an order or an entry made in the order sheet can be the subject-matter of challenge before appropriate forum. There cannot be any dispute with regard to this fact and said exercise, if undertaken by a litigant, the assailing order passed by the Court or procedure adopted would be permissible within four corners of law. A judgment or an order or an entry made in the order sheet can be the subject-matter of challenge before appropriate forum. There cannot be any dispute with regard to this fact and said exercise, if undertaken by a litigant, the assailing order passed by the Court or procedure adopted would be permissible within four corners of law. However, when the act to defame the Court (a Judge) is undertaken in a calculated manner, which ultimately results in obstruction in the administration of justice, it would amount to interference with the due course of justice or proper administration of law and it would certainly amount to contempt. The offence of contempt as opined by Willmot, Chief Justice in Rex v. Davies reads thus:- "The offence of contempt is really a wrong done to the public by weakening the authority and influence of course of law which exist for their good. As such course adopted by a litigant which under minds the Court (the Judge) would amount to attack upon the Judge in the minds of the people which may ultimately result in general dissatisfaction with all judicial determination and as opined by the Chief Justice Willmot, where a man's allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken it is the most fatal and dangerous obstruction of justice and it calls for rapid and immediate redressal which would not be for the sake of Judge or Court or any private individual but in the administration and to keep the stream of justice pure." 13. Keeping these principles in mind when the facts on hand are examined, this Court is of the considered view that statement made by the petitioner amounts to prima facie contempt. Hence, registry may take appropriate steps to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for passing necessary orders to place the matter before appropriate Bench. 14. After order was dictated, petitioner-party-in-person requested the Court to drop contempt proceedings sought to be initiated and stated before this Court that affidavit would be filed by him by withdrawing insinuating and defamatory remarks made against Judges, Presiding Officers of Trial Court and by tendering apology and as such, extending the olive branch, matter was ordered to be called at 2.30 p.m. 15. At 2.30 p.m. Sri Subhaschandra Shetty, party-in-person has filed an affidavit as undertaken by him during prelaunch session. Said affidavit is placed on record. 16. At 2.30 p.m. Sri Subhaschandra Shetty, party-in-person has filed an affidavit as undertaken by him during prelaunch session. Said affidavit is placed on record. 16. In view of the fact that he has expressed remorse and tendered unconditional apology and also on account of withdrawing his remarks made against Judges, Presiding Officers of Trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that there would not be any necessity for the registry to take steps in the matter as directed hereinabove. Accordingly, issue regarding contempt stands closed. With these observations and for the reasons already indicated hereinabove, this Court is the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Registry is directed to forward paragraph 10 of this Order to the District Judge, Udupi for information and taking steps as directed. Petition Dismissed.