9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A civil suit for recovery of possession of a building was filed by the appellant in the court of the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi (Shri S.N. Dhingra's court). Respondent filed written statement in the suit. Taking advantage of certain admissions made in the written statement, appellant preferred an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC (for short 'the Code') for pronouncing a judgment, having regard to such admissions and for passing a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Respondent filed objections to the aforesaid application and prayed for its dismissal. When the application came up for argument on 21.5.1998, respondent filed a strange petition seeking transfer of the case by the judge suo motu. How strange was that petition can be shown by extracting the material portion of it hereunder : "That the counsel for the defendant is a member of Delhi Bar Association and recently vide Resolution dated 15.5.98 Delhi Bar Association has boycotted the appearance of its members in any case before this Hon'ble court. That the counsel for the defendant being a member of the Delhi Bar Association is bound by all the resolutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court and all that he needed was a decision on the application made by him under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. 6. Appellant being an octogenarian has seemingly felt that further delay in the trial proceedings would only result in procrastination of his suit. But, despite the aforesaid offer made by the appellant, learned Single Judge of the High Court adjourned the revision from time to time, until it reached the date 10.9.1998, on which day the respondent filed a civil miscellaneous petition praying that "in the event the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to allow the revision and quash the impugned order, the suit presently pending before Shri S.N. Dhingra, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi may be transferred to some other court." 7. The ground for making such a prayer was a newspaper report that when the Secretary of Delhi Bar Association shouted in open court in the presence of all litigants asking Shri Dhingra to stop working, the Judge did not accede to it and then filthy language was hurled in the court to which "other litigants present in the court also raised their voice" against such invidious vituperations, and that appellant was also one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against whom it was made." 11. Out of the two clauses in the proviso, the former has no application to the order, which has been challenged in the High Court, because even if the application of the respondent filed on 21.5.1998 was granted, the suit would not have been finally disposed of. The latter clause could be resorted to only if that order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the respondent. Thus, even if such an order passed by the subordinate court has any illegality or is affected by material irregularly, the High Court will not interfere unless the said order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or its effect would be infliction of irreparable injury to any party. 12. While entertaining the revision petition, learned Single Judge has observed thus: "The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions states that the petitioner in the present proceedings assails and the part of the impugned order which relates to respondent's application filled under XII Rule 6 CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case Ram Lal v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut as a permanent feature, is unprofessional as also unbecoming of the status of an advocate. No court is obliged to adjourn a cause because of the strike call given by any Association of Advocates or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or any particular court. It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed with the judicial business during court hours. No court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating. 17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has reminded members of the legal profession in Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State, (Delhi Administration) 1984 CriLJ 340 that it is the duty of every advocate who accepts brief to attend the trial and such duty cannot be over stressed. It was further reminded that "having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend." "A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the Court, of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferential respect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the decorum of the court room". (Warvelle's Legal Ethics at P. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
