MAHABIR PRASAD SINGH Vs. JACKS AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear. But unfortunately this case reflects apathy on the part of the High Court in affording such protection to a judicial functionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy slammed on him in open Court.

(3.) It all happened in the following manner: 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 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: