TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt 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 Code of Civil Procedure (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 resolutions passed by the executive Committee of Delhi Bar Association and in such cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 6 of the Code. 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. 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 Dingier 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 such litigants. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has noted in the proceedings what appellant had stated before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. While entertaining the revision petition learned Single Judge has observed thus: Thr lrstnrf voundrl got yhr pryiyionrt on indytuvyiond dysyrd yhsy yhr pryiyionrt in yhr ptrdrny ptovrrfinhd sd dsild snf yhr psty og yhr impuhnrf otfrt ehivh trlsyrd yo trdponfrny'd spplivsyion gilrf unfrt XII Rule 6 CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in case Ram Lal Vs. Madan Gopal ors. reported as 1995 Supp(4) SCC 655. Issue notice to the respondent on the above limited question asking the respondent to show cause as to why t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rike 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. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has reminded members of the legal profession in Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1984 1 SCC 722) 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. Hence the order passed by the Additional District Judge on 21.5.1998 has no legal infirmity, mush less any scope for occasioning failure of justice. Question of that order causing any irreparable injury does not arise particularly because the said order was byproduct of the unwholesome strategy adopted by the respondent's counsel in abstaining form the court and reporting that he would not attend that court in future. The party who brought about such a situation ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
