The Court ruled that while the Trial Court's admonishment of the petitioner was justified, the remarks regarding misrepresentation of an interim order were unnecessary and should be expunged.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, an advocate has filed this petition seeking for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the daily order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.66/2016 and consequently to expunge remarks made against him.

2. (i) The petitioner, an advocate for the plaintiff in O.S.No.66/2016 contends that the Trial Court had framed issues on 14.01.2020 and additional issues on 01.03.2021. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.12 died on 09.06.2021. His legal representatives were brought on record pursuant to the order dated 19.07.2021. The Trial Court posted the case for written statement of the defendant No.12 (a) to (c). However, written statement was not filed. Later on 19.04.2022 two applications (I.A.Nos.37 and 38) were filed, one for condonation of delay in filing written statement and another for permission to file written statement.

(ii) On 04.01.2023, I.A.No.39 filed by the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of defendant was allowed. The Trial Court posted the case for hearing on I.A.Nos.37 and 38. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed their common objections to I.A.Nos.37 and 38. The applications were taken up and I.A.Nos.37 and 38 were heard and the case was posted for orders and evidence of the contesting defendants. The petitioner requested the Trial Court for time to lead evidence of the defendant Nos.12 (a) to (c), as their written statement was yet to be taken on record. The Trial Court rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that written statement was yet to be taken on record and therefore, he had no reason to seek adjournment to lead evidence. The petitioner claimed that the Presiding Officer reprimanded him resulting in a commotion in the Court, which compelled him to approach the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru along with other members of the Bar. On the same day, I.A.Nos.37 and 38 were dismissed. The defendant Nos.12 (a) to (c) approached this Court for setting aside the order passed on I.A.Nos.37 and 38. This Court in terms of the order dated 10.01.2023 granted interim order but it was not uploaded on the website of this Court till 13.01.2023.

(iii) On 12.01.2023 the suit was passed over and the petitioner was instructed to file a memo regarding the interim order granted by this Court. A memo was filed by the petitioner informing the Court about the interim order as understood by him. A copy of the memo was served to the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant No.2 who did not object to it.

(iv) On 13.01.2023, the counsel for the defendant No.2 filed a memo stating that the petitioner had misquoted the order of this Court dated 10.01.2023. The Trial Court allegedly without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, noted in the order sheet that the petitioner had misquoted the nature of the interim order granted by this Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the said observation, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this Court had granted an interim order as follows:

"Plaintiff shall not precipitate the matter before the Trial Court with regard to addressing arguments on the main matter, however, ancillary proceedings on interim/interlocutory may go on".

5. He contends that the memo filed on 12.01.2023 was to the effect that "all ancillary proceedings in the suit including hearing on I.A's may continue while no precipitation on the main arguments be effected, as undertaken by the counsel for plaintiff and defendant No.2." The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the tenor of the interim order granted by this Court was more or less in line with the one mentioned in the memo. Therefore, the Trial Court could not have brandished the petitioner of misrepresenting before the Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 who was notified submitted that the petitioner had mentioned in the memo dated 12.01.2023 that the interim o