NAGAPPA MALLAPPA BANDI Vs. SHIVRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "the subject of traditions of the Bar has, quite unfortunately, came to be associated with certain indelicate assumptions that the best traditions of the Bar are mere myths and the illusions of begone time and a nostalgia of a nineteenth century pradery. I venture, more hopefully, to think that the great traditions of the Bar have sustained the profession of law which every civilised society cherishes as part of a very valuable inheritance. The high traditions of the Bar are springs of strength and sustenance in its days of trial. The profession of the lawyer is perhaps the single most powerful instrument for the protection of the liberty of man and the decencies of civilised living"

(2.) THIS preface is required, as the subject matter of the present proceedings would involve a delicate question where a practicing Counsel, who is a party to the proceeding can represent himself when the advocate representing him continues to be on record. The matter arises in the following manner :

(3.) RESPONDENT herein has filed a suit in o. S. No. 20/1995 on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC, Haveri, for recovery of certain amount and for use and occupation of the suit schedule property. It appears that the said suit was decreed ex-parte for a sum of rs. 960. 50 ps. Since the respondent was not awarded future interest, an application was filed under Section 152 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree so as to include awarding of the future interest. The said proceeding was numbered as Miscellaneous Application No. 2/2000. In the said proceeding, the present respondent was the applicant. A perusal of the cause title would clearly show that the applicant who is the respondent herein is a practicing advocate of Haveri Bar. An application was filed by the opponent in M. A. No. 2/2000 under Sections 30 and 33 of the advocate Act r/w Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure seeking an injunctive relief restraining the petitioner i. e. , the respondent herein not to conduct the proceedings personally without discharging the advocate appearing for him in the case. The sum and substances of the application I. A. 2 is that the respondent had engaged an advocate for conducting the said proceedings and he had not discharged the said advocate. Unless the said counsel is discharged, the respondent cannot conduct the proceedings. According to the petitioner, the same is illegal and not permissible under law and sought for an injunction restraining the respondent from arguing the case without discharging his counsel on record. The respondent herein seriously objected to the said application and has filed a detailed statement of objection, a copy of which is produced at Annexure 'b-1'. The substratum of the said objection would show that the respondent having innumerable personal cases where he has obtained a decree, it would be difficult for him to instruct his counsel in order to conduct the case and the circumstance warrant that he conducts the case himself, notwithstanding the fact that the counsel being engaged by him or without discharging him. In support of his contention, the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Apex court in Smt. Vidya Verma through next friend R. V. S. Mani v. Dr. Shiv Narain verman reported in AIR 1956 SC 108. The learned Trial Judge on a consideration of the various contentions urged by both the parties has declined to entertain the said application and rejected the same on the ground that it is not necessary for the respondent to discharge the advocate before he represents the case himself and conducts the matter. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is to be found at annexure 'c'.