1998 (11) TMI 665 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining the revision petition.
2. Professional conduct and ethics of legal counsel in boycotting court proceedings.
3. Validity and implications of the order passed by the Additional District Judge.
4. Request for transfer of the case to another court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Jurisdiction in Entertaining the Revision Petition:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the revision petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 21.5.1998. The order was not revisable by the High Court due to the specific interdict embodied in the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The proviso restricts the High Court from varying or reversing any order unless it would finally dispose of the suit or cause irreparable injury. The Supreme Court noted that neither condition was met in this case, as the order did not dispose of the suit nor would its standing cause irreparable injury or a failure of justice.

2. Professional Conduct and Ethics of Legal Counsel in Boycotting Court Proceedings:

The judgment emphasized that judicial functions should not be obstructed by tactics such as boycotts or pressure strategies from litigants or counsel. The court criticized the conduct of the respondent's counsel, who abstained from appearing in court due to a boycott call by the Delhi Bar Association, labeling such behavior as unprofessional and unbecoming of an advocate's status. The court reiterated the duty of advocates to attend court proceedings and fulfill their professional obligations, as highlighted in previous decisions, such as Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State, where it was stressed that failing to attend after accepting a brief constitutes a breach of professional duty.

3. Validity and Implications of the Order Passed by the Additional District Judge:

The Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the Additional District Judge on 21.5.1998, finding no legal infirmity or potential for causing a failure of justice. The order was a result of the respondent's counsel's decision to boycott the court, and the Supreme Court held that the party responsible for creating such a situation could not later complain about the resulting order. The court reaffirmed that no court is obliged to adjourn proceedings due to a strike or boycott by advocates.

4. Request for Transfer of the Case to Another Court:

Despite the appellant expressing no objection to transferring the case, the Supreme Court rejected the plea for a change of court. The court emphasized that a change of court is not warranted merely because both parties agree, as this could allow parties to avoid a particular court and choose one of their preference. The Supreme Court stressed that such an option should not be available to parties, and directed the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, to proceed with the case according to law.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the revisional proceedings entertained by the High Court and instructed the trial court to continue with the case, thereby allowing the appeal.