Arulmigu Sishtagurunathasamy Temple vs Abaranji Ammal

S.S. Subramani, J.—This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 315 of 1998 on the file of

District Munsif, Panruti.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as against defendant, her men, servants and agents restraining

them from in any manner cutting and carrying away the standing casuarina trees standing over the suit properties on her own or by selling the same

to any third party and without resorting to public auction at the initiative and in the presence of the Executive Officer of plaintiff-temple, for

direction to the defendant to pay the cost of the suit and for granting such other reliefs.

Along with the suit, an application for ad interim injunction was filed as I.A.No. 880 of 1998. It is seen even though plaint is dated 14.10.1998,

the same is received on 21.10.1998. It was taken to the Presiding Officer to pass orders on the ad interim injunction application. But the Presiding

Officer did not pass any orders but ordered notice returnable by 4.11.1998. Respondent entered appearance on 20.11.1998. On 20.11.1998, the

case was adjourned to 24.11.1998 and their to 3.12.1998. Even though the case was posted on various dates from 20.11.1998, in view of

Advocates boycott, the case is now posted on 4.1.1999. No interim order was also obtained till date. It is this procedure that is challenged by

plaintiff by filing this revision petition.

According to me, if at all plaintiff is entitled to any relief, that can only be against the counsel who did not think of protecting the interest of client

who was more interested in boycotting the courts and refusing to argue the case for petitioner. When there is nobody to represent plaintiff, court is

not obliged to pass interim order and is also not expected to take the case at all. In spite of the same, lower court was generous enough to take up

the case and adjourning the same on various dates. In spite of the adjournments granted under the fond hope, that counsel would make

representation, counsel was more interested in boycotting court than protecting the interest of the client.

In a very recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (1998)8 Supreme

378, their Lordships considered a similar question. In paragraphs 13 to 16 of the judgment, Honourable Supreme Court has taken into

consideration this point and deprecated such practice. The relevant portion of the judgment read thus,

13, This is not a case where respondent was prevented by Additional District Judge from addressing oral arguments. But the respondent''s counsel

prevented the Additional District Judge from hearing his oral arguments on the stated cause that he decided to boycott that court for ever as the

Delhi Bar Association took such a decision. Here the counsel did not want a case to be decided by that Court. By such conduct the counsel

prevented the judicial process to have its even course flowed. Respondent has no justification to approach the High Court as it was the respondent

who contributed to such a situation.

If any counsel does not want to appear in a particular court, that too for justifiable reasons. Professional decorum and etiquette require him to

give up his engagement in that court so that the party can engage another counsel. But retaining the brief of his client and at the same time abstaining

from appearing in that court, that too not on any particular day on account of some personal inconvenience of the counsel but 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.

A three-Judge Bench of this Court has reminded members of the legal profession in Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration),

that it is the duty of every advocates who accepts brief to attend the trial and such duty cannot be overstressed. 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. (Warevel Ps Legal Ethics at P.

182)

Of course, it is not a unilateral affair. There is a reciprocal duty for the court also to be courteous to the members of the Bar and to make every

endeavour for maintaining and protecting the respect which members of the Bar are entitled to have from their clients as well as from the litigant

public. Both the Bench and the Bar are the two in-extricable wings of the Judicial forum and therefore the aforesaid mutual respect is sine qua non

for the efficient functioning of the solemn work carried on in courts of law. But that does not mean that any advocate or group of them can boycott

the courts or any particular court and ask the court to desist from discharging judicial functions. At any rate, no advocate can ask the court to

avoid a case on the ground that he does not want to appear in that court.

The Advocate is free to participate in any strike or boycott but that should not be at the stake of the client for whom he has an obligation. By

boycotting the court and not protecting the interest of the clients he is committing professional misconduct and the same is also liable to be

proceeded with. If he cannot appear for his client, he is duty bound to inform the party to make other arrangements and reasonable opportunity

has to be given to the party for engaging another counsel or at least for the party himself to appear before the court and plead his case. Under

normal circumstances, when the advocate is on record, party is not allowed to plead the case. But, in cases where advocate is insisting on his

participating in the boycott, without taking into consideration the interest of the clients, the court itself must revoke the vakalath and permit the party

to present his or their case. A member of the Bar, if he is not understanding his responsibility and duty towards his client cannot come to this Court

that too under Article 227 of the Constitution of India that he wants urgent relief and complaint that the court has not passed any order.

In the result, I find that the counsel for petitioner appearing in the lower court has not discharged his duties properly and by absenting himself

from the court when the case was called, has committed breach of trust and grave professional misconduct.

Further, I do not want the client to suffer because of the misconduct of the advocate. I only direct the lower court is to dispose of the injunction

application on the next hearing date i.e. on 4.1.1999 and pass orders on the same. Even if petitioner''s counsel is not present or he thinks of

continuing boycott lower court shall pass orders on that date on the basis of available materials.

With the above observations this revision petition is disposed of. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to take appropriate action against the

counsel for damages.