High Court stresses judicial propriety, expunges harmful remarks against counsel, sets aside dismissal order, directs fair reconsideration.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a case involving the dismissal of a civil suit in default and subsequent restoration application, emphasized judicial propriety and the need to avoid unnecessary remarks. The court highlighted the importance of refraining from strong language that could harm parties or witnesses. Referring to relevant case law, the court ordered the expunging of remarks made against the counsel and set aside the order dismissing the appeal. The appellate court was directed to reconsider the matter without being influenced by the counsel's conduct, ultimately disposing of the petition accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of civil suit in default and subsequent restoration application.
2. Remarks made against the counsel during the judicial proceedings.
3. Appeal dismissal and request for expunging remarks and setting aside the order.

Analysis:
The judgment by T.S. Doabia, J. of the Madhya Pradesh High Court pertains to a civil suit dismissal in default and subsequent restoration application. The suit, initially dismissed in default, saw an application for restoration dismissed by the trial court, which was later upheld on appeal. The key grievances raised in this petition were the remarks made against the counsel and the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial propriety, highlighting that only essential matters should be addressed in judicial proceedings. The court cited the principle that unnecessary remarks should not form part of the judicial record, referencing the decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC703.

Moreover, the judgment reiterated that strong language should be avoided when discussing the conduct of parties or witnesses, as disparaging remarks could cause significant harm. This was supported by the observations in the case of State of M. P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors. 1987 MPLJ 250 :AIR 1987 SC 251, cautioning judges to act with sobriety and restraint. The court also referred to A M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta AIR 1990 SC 1737, emphasizing the necessity of judicial restraint and discipline in maintaining the respect and independence of the judiciary.

In light of the above principles, the court concluded that the remarks made against the counsel should be expunged. Additionally, the court noted that the lower court had been influenced by the counsel's conduct, directing the appellate court to reconsider the matter without such influence. Consequently, the order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and a fresh order was instructed to be passed, thereby disposing of the petition accordingly.

---