The main legal point established in the judgment is that any alteration of judgment after it is signed, and administrative directions that may give the impression of monitoring the progress of a case cannot be issued behind the back of the parties.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

These appeals arise out of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein, praying for the quashing of the certain communications issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to the Trial Court in pursuance of the certain directions issued by a learned Judge after disposing of a criminal revision petition.

2. We have heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr.S.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent.

3. A complaint in crime No.7 of 2011 came to be registered against the appellants herein, who are husband and wife respectively, for alleged offences under Section 13 (2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that the appellants amassed wealth disproportionate to the own sources of their income. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in Special Case No.4 of 2012 against both the appellants. During the pendency of the said case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption filed an application in Crl.O.P.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, seeking attachment of the properties of the appellants. This petition was filed under Section 3 (i) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinances Act, 1944. An application in Crl.M.P.No.2745 of 2012 was also filed for interim attachment. The said application for interim attachment was ordered by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge by an order dated 13.07.2012.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court granting interim attachment, the appellants filed a revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.445 of 2013 on the file of this Court. The said revision was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 10.07.2013, directing the Principal District and Sessions Judge to pass a reasoned order.

5. Thereafter, it appears that the first appellant's father who was arrayed as accused No.3, in the main criminal case, filed an application on 13.08.2013 before the trial Court under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensing with his personal appearance. But the said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.08.2013 on the ground that by an order dated 23.07.2013, this Court had directed the trial Court to serve summons on all the accused and to frame charges and to report back to the High Court within three weeks.

6. Since the Criminal Revision Case No.445 of 2013, had already been disposed of on 10.07.2013 and also since the said revision was not listed for hearing before Court on 23.07.2013, the appellants made verifications. In the meantime, the trial Court issued a notice dated 30.07.2013 on the basis of the order passed by this Court on 23.07.2013, directing the trial Court to summon the accused and report the same to the High Court. Therefore, upon receipt of the said letter from the trial Court, the appellants made enquiries and found out that docket orders have been passed in the criminal revision petition after it was disposed on 10.07.2013. Aggrieved by those docket orders and the communication issued by the Registry to the trial Court on the basis of those docket orders, the appellants came up with two Writ Petitions in W.P. (MD)Nos.19823 and 16368 of 2013. Both these writ petitions were directed by the Chief Justice of this Court to be posted before the learned Judge who disposed of the criminal revision case and who had passed docket orders. The learned Judge after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petitions by an order dated 07.01.2014. It is against the said order of the learned Judge dismissing their challenge to those orders that the appellants are before us.

7. Before taking up the issues arising for consideration in the writ appeals, it is necessary for us to have a look at the docket orders and the communication issued by the Registry to the trial Court on the bas