HARI CHAND Vs. MOHINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A.O. No. 69 of 1968 was dismissed in default on 23.5.1969 on the ground that in spite of there being two counsels for the appellant, neither was present to prosecute the appeal. An application under order 9, Rule 13, read with section 151, Civil C.P. was presented in this Court on the same day on which it was dismissed in default and the reason given was that one of the counsel was present before one learned Single Judge of this Court and the other counsel before another learned Single Judge. Unfortunately, there was no one to inform this Court about this fact when the case was called, though I waited for the counsel for more than five minutes, having in the meantime gone through the record of the case. Even the Reader of this Court had not been informed where the two counsels whould be if this case happened to be called during their appearance in some other Court-room. This case was dismissed in default, as is usual with this Court, after waiting for more than reasonable time and when I felt that it would be improper to wait any longer. It must in this connection be clearly understood to be the duty of the counsel who have more cases than one fixed in one day before different Judges of this Court, to see that they make suitable arrangements with some colleague of theirs to appear for them in their cases which are called for hearing during their occupation elsewhere. There is no dearth of promising and industrious young lawyers practising at the Bar of this Court who are anxious to get opportunities to prepare cases and argue them and who are second to none in their desire for maintaining the High traditions of the Bar. The counsel selected by the busy members of the Bar should, however, be ready, in the event of clash, to proceed with the case entrusted to them. Generally speaking, the counsel who are too busy professionally, are expected, in the interest of all concerned, to have a sufficiently large number of junior counsel whom they should train and appropriately instruct in cases they may have to conduct. This would not only lessen inconvenience to the Court by saving time and safeguard the interests of the litigant public, but would in addition suitably equip and prepare the junior Bar for shouldering their responsibilities to the litigant public, to the Court and to the judicial process in our democratic set-up. Judicial process can effectively serve the cause assigned to it in our set-up only if the fraternal community of the Bench and the Bar concentrate on the conscientious performance of their respective duties in their traditional disciplined manner which postulates impartial and impersonal attention to the claims of the litigating parties. A professional lawyer, entrusted with the duty of representing his clients in their legal controversies in Court, is expected to perform that duty with the requisite sense of all-round responsibility befitting such entrustment. This sense of responsibility has its roots in the high traditions and conventions of the Bar, largely inherited by the Indian Bar from the English Bar. To appropriately guide, help and equip the junior Bar shouldering their responsibilities by appropriately instructing them and making them work, is indeed the privilege and also the duty of the senior Bar. This Court, it is needless to point out, is also fully alive to its duty in zealously guarding the traditional morality and privileges of the legal profession which is an essential and integral part of the administration of justice in our Republic, consistently with and subject to the legitimate interests of the litigant public and sustenance of the requisite quality of our judicial process.

(2.) On this occasion, I have set aside the dismissal in default and restored the appeal to its original number as a, special case, but in future, this Court is duty-bound to be more strict in cases of those senior counsel whose hands are too full with cases which they cannot look after single-handed with the thoroughness demanded and who fail to have with them an appropriate number of junior counsel, so that the Courts do not have to wait for them an unreasonable long time when their cases are called.

(3.) After setting aside the dismissal in default and restoring the appeal to its original number, I have also heard the appeal on the merits.