T VENKANNA Vs. HIGH COURT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to Notification No.GOB 291/72 dt.4-4-1972 and published in the Mysore Gazette dt.6-4-1972, Sri T. Venkanna, a practising Advo cate offered himself for being considered by the High Court for recommendation to be appointed as a District Judge. Since he was not called for interview by the High Court, he preferred WP.No.2937 of 1972 which came up for preliminary hearing for admission on the 28th of November 1972 before us. The petitioner was not represented by Counsel and he appeared in person and wanted to argue from the Bar his own cause. He Was told by us to disrobe himself and then address the Court. The petitioner insisted that he should be heard without being required to remove his Gown. Being of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to argue with his robes on since he was arguing his own cause, his petition was dismissed.

(2.) The said order reads thus :

(3.) On 29-11-1972 the petitioner filed IA. No, I wherein he has prayed that our order dt.28-11-1972 be recalled and he be permitted to argue his case with his robes on. When the matter came up for hearing on IA.No.1 we told Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar, learned Counsel for Sri Venkanna in IA.No.1 that we will recall our order dt.28-11-1972 if the Counsel would argue the case at the preliminary hearing for admission. We also told him that if Sri Venkanna would comply with the directions of this Court and argue without his robes on, we will permit him to argue after recalling our earlier order. Sri lyengar after consulting his client told us that he has been engaged only to argue the interlocutory application and rot the mam matter for admission and that Sri Venkanna is not prepared to argue unless we permit him to argue with his robes on. We heard Sri lyengar on the question whether an Advocate appearing in his own cause is entitled to argue before this Court with his advocate's robes on.