2011 (2) TMI 1384 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court could interfere with the order of the trial Court without considering the question whether the said order was vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or the trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the application of the respondents and the order passed by it has resulted in failure of justice? Whether a litigant filing the list of witnesses is bound to indicate howsoever briefly the relevance of the witness to the subject matter of the suit etc. and in any case one party to the proceedings cannot cite the advocate representing the other side as a witness and thereby deprive the latter of the services of the advocate without disclosing as to how his testimony is relevant to the issues arising in the case?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents could cite the advocate representing the appellants as a witness without indicating the purpose.
2. The High Court's interference with the trial court's order without considering jurisdictional errors.
3. The necessity for a litigant to indicate the relevance of witnesses in the list.
4. The fiduciary relationship between a lawyer and client and its implications on citing a lawyer as a witness.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Citation of Advocate as Witness:
The primary issue was whether the respondents could list the appellants' advocate, Shri N. Ravindranath Kamath, as a witness without providing any reason. The trial court had partially allowed the respondents' application to file a list of witnesses but rejected the inclusion of the advocate, stating that reasons must be provided for citing an advocate of the opposite party. The court emphasized that citing an advocate as a witness without justification could deprive the opposite party of legal representation, causing undue harm. The High Court, however, set aside this decision, asserting that reasons were not required for summoning a witness.

2. High Court's Interference:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could interfere with the trial court's order without establishing that the order was vitiated due to jurisdictional errors. The Court referenced the principles laid out in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others and Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, which outline the scope of the High Court's powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It was noted that the High Court must correct gross errors of jurisdiction and ensure that subordinate courts operate within their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had ignored these principles and set aside the trial court's order without any substantial reasoning.

3. Indicating Relevance of Witnesses:
The Court deliberated on whether a litigant must indicate the relevance of witnesses in the list. Referring to Mange Ram vs. Brij Mohan, the Court highlighted that the list of witnesses should include a gist of the evidence to be provided by each witness. This requirement ensures that the court can determine the materiality of the witness's testimony and prevents misuse of the process. The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing parties to list witnesses without indicating their relevance could lead to prolonged litigation and misuse of legal procedures.

4. Fiduciary Relationship between Lawyer and Client:
The Supreme Court underscored the fiduciary relationship between a lawyer and client, which is based on trust and confidentiality. Rules 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Section II, Chapter II of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, were cited to illustrate the duties of an advocate towards their client, including the duty to act in good faith and maintain confidentiality. The Court noted that citing an advocate as a witness without justification could breach this fiduciary relationship and undermine the client's trust. The respondents' attempt to cite the appellants' advocate was deemed as an attempt to force the advocate's withdrawal, which was considered mischievous and unjustified.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's decision. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants. The judgment reinforced the necessity for litigants to provide reasons when citing witnesses, particularly when the witness is an advocate representing the opposite party, to prevent misuse of legal processes and protect the integrity of the lawyer-client relationship.