The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the building. During the pendency of the suit on 15-5-1998 the Delhi Bar Association passed a resolution boycotting that court due to his improper behavior towards the lawyers. Taking advantage of this boycott resolution the defendant filed a petition asking the judge totransfer the case,suo motou, to another court because his advocate will not appear in the court In the future. The transfer petition was dismissed.
This order was challenged before the High court. The High Court stayed the proceedings and the case was adjourned for long period. Aggrieved by the stay of proceedings and the long adjournment the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. In the appeal the Supreme Court gave the following orders.
1. If any councel does not want to appear in the court, that too for justifiable reasons, the case should be returned to the party so that the party can engage in another councel.
2. Retaining the case without returning it to the client and abstaining from conducting the case in the court amounts to professional misconduct.
3. The court should not adjourn the case on the ground of Advocates strike or Advocates decision of boycott the court.
4. During the court hours even if the Advocates are not appearing the court should proceed with the trial of the case.
5. Court should not yield to the pressure tactics of boycott or any kind of brow beating.
6. Judicial officers should behave cardialy towards the Advocates.
Comments