TMI Blog1922 (1) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court, of proceedings taken by him under S. 14 of Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, against one Tarini Mohan, Barari, a pleader of that Court. The report of the learned District Judge in material parts was as follows: The circumstances that have given rise to these proceedings are similar to those that were the occasion of proceedings against ten other pleaders, regarding whom I have, this day, made a report, and I need not restate them. It is sufficient to say that Tarini Mohan Barari has complied with the resolution passed by the Dacca Bar Association on the 17th June last, asking its members not to appear as pleaders before Babu Pasupati Bose. The Defendant pleader had presented a plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on my plaint directing its return. I asked him to appear before the Court and move for a reconsideration of the order. He told me that as other pleaders have not been appearing, he would not. I, therefore, throw myself entirely at the mercy of the Court. I asked him why he did not explain before the Court the state of things why the suit was triable before the Court. He answered that he and other pleaders were determined not to appear in this Court I have been put to severe loss for his conduct. 3. The notice which was served on the pleader was as follows: Whereas it appears that you filed a plaint registered as No. 40 of 1921 in a form that it was not entertain able by this Court, that you did not willfully appear before the Court t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r believes that the institution of this proceeding against him is the result of an afterthought and is part of a series of proceedings instituted against him and certain other members of the Bar with a view to put them into difficulties and put pressure on those members who are not inclined to appear in this Court from a sense of self-respect and out of apprehension of being insulted in Court in consequence of this Court's uniform ill-treatment of members of the Bar and particularly the gross insult offered to Babu Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, a pleader, by the Court on the 15th June last and as such those proceedings are not bond fide. 5. It appears that on the 15th June 1921 an incident had occurred in the Court of the Subordinate Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel had opened the facts of the reference and the hearing had proceeded for sometime, the Court intimated to the learned Vakil for the pleaders that even assuming that the learned Subordinate Judge was in the wrong with reference to the above-mentioned incident, as to which the Court expressed no opinion, that could not be any justification for the conduct of the pleaders. The result was that the hearing of the reference was adjourned for a week in order that the learned Vakils appearing for the pleaders concerned in this and the other references might consult their clients many of whom were not then present in Court. At the adjourned hearing the learned Vakil appearing on behalf of the pleader in this reference expressed his client' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however must not be misunderstood. It must pot be assumed that the Court regards the action of the pleaders as a matter of little importance. 13. On the contrary we regard it as a very serious matter. The pleader deliberately abstained from attending the Subordinate Judge's Court and took part in a concerted movement to boycott the learned Judge's Court, a course of conduct which cannot be justified or tolerated. 14. The pleaders had duties and obligations to their clients in respect of the suits and matters entrusted to them which were pending in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge. 15. There was a further and equally important duty and obligation upon them, viz., to co-operate with the Court in the orderly and pure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|