Expunging of scandalous allegations from the affidavit by the Court.

ANANTANARAYANAN C.J.

The proceeding before us is by the Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Ltd, in the form of an appeal from the judgment of Kailasam J. in T.C.M.P. No. 39 of 1965 in T.C. No. 218 of 1959. We are of the view that the matter, essentially, lies within a restricted compass. We have had extensive arguments presented before us, both by learned counsel for the appellant-firm and learned counsel for Sri A. C. K. Krishnaswami (respondent), but there are several very good reasons why we need not cover the entire area of these submissions. Actually, the relief now asked for is restricted in scope, and depends on the application of a certain limited principle of the procedural law. Again, in view of the other proceedings that are pending now in this court between the same parties, and which are sub judice, and further, in view of the admittedly most acrimonious and embittered relationship between the parties, it appears to us to be expedient and desirable to limit the scope of our observations to the issue involved Very briefly stated, the point is whether the appellant-firm, represented by Sri G. Vasantha Pai, is entitled to inspect the proceedings in T. C. No 218 of 1959, to which proceeding the appellant-firm was not a party. There is also a prayer for the grant of copies of such of these documents as may be required for purpose of the prosecution of other proceedings by the firm, in Company Petition No. 87 of 1964 and C. S. No. 65 of 1964, on the original side ; we desire to add here that we are restricting ourselves, for stated reasons to the request for the inspection of proceedings in T. C. No. 218 of 1959. With regard to the grant of the copies of documents we are referring the appellant-firm to remedies which should be available in the appropriate pending proceedingThe main ground of objection to the grant of even the limited relief of inspection of the records in T.C. No. 218 of 1959 by the appellant-firm, which has been urged by learned counsel for the respondent (Sri A. C. K. Krishnaswami), can be briefly set forth. Learned counsel (Sri Ismail) strenuously contends that the appellant-firm, not being a party to the tax case proceedings, is really attempting, by means of this devious route, to fish for and to obtain material in order to proceed in harassment against Sri A. C. K. Krishnaswami in a feud that has now lasted quite a considerable time. Sri Ismail argues that the appellant-firm cannot be possibly bound by any observations of the Division Bench in that judgment, with regard to the proprietary interest in the lease. Since the appellant-firm is not a party, and cannot be bound by the judgment or by any part of it, on any principle of res judicata, or an analogous concept, the request of the firm to inspect the documents is not bona fide. Counsel also points out that the nature of those proceedings is unique, there is authority for the view that such proceedings are not in appellate jurisdiction, but are really comprised in a special advisory jurisdiction of this court. Rule 65 of the Appellate Side Rules (old), which has been relied on by Sri Vasantha Pai for the petitioner-firm, can, therefore, have no conceivable application. Where the rule does not apply, and the jurisdiction is special and governed only by the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, the request for inspection ought to be refused. It is further contended that, though the respondent (Sri A. C. K. Krishnaswami) does not concede that there is anything in the printed material or the typed papers of T.C. No. 218 of 1959, which could possibly affect him by a disclosure, nevertheless, they are his personal documents, which he filed in those proceedings to which the appellant-firm was not a party ; hence, that the request for inspection ought to be negativedA certain area of the scope of the judgment of Kailasam J. in T.C.M.P. No. 39 of 1965 may be immediately excluded. The learned judge seems to have concerned with the quest