ALEX P CHACKO Vs. VARGHESE MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an advocate practising in the Courts at Pathanamthitta and Ranni and has a standing of more than 24 years at the Bar. He is aggrieved by the unwarranted and unjustified remarks made by the District Judge, Pathanamthitta while disposing of OP (TP) No. 56 of 1998 and OP (TP) 57 of 1998. What infuriated the learned District Judge to make disparaging remarks against the petitioner was the filing of OP 32195 of 1999 before this Court alleging undue delay on the part of the District Judge in disposing of Transfer OPs 56 and 57 of 1998. OP 32195 of 1999 was disposed of by this Court on 20/01/2000 with a direction to the District Judge to dispose of OP (TP) 56/96 within a period of two weeks from 25/01/2000. Transfer OPs were then come up for hearing on 25/01/2000 and dismissed by the Learned District Judge vide order dated 04/02/2000 making some disparaging, unmerited, uncharitable and irrelevant remarks against the counsel, which petitioner says would lower his reputation and standing at the Bar.

(2.) Counsel submitted, OP 32195 of 1999 was filed before this Court not by him, but by the party engaging another counsel and the only prayer in the original petition was for early disposal of the transfer petitions pending before the District Court. Petitioner submitted, learned Judge while disposing of transfer petitions stated as follows:

(3.) I heard Sri. P. C. Chacko, Advocate who argued the case with usual thoroughness and placed all relevant decisions. I have gone through the entire pleadings and the order passed by the learned Judge. I am of the view that the remarks made by the learned Judge against the lawyer cannot stand for a moment. I fail to see why those disparaging, unmerited, uncharitable and irrelevant remarks were made against the counsel for no reasons whatsoever. How a counsel can be find fault with for filing an original petition by the party before the High Court for speedy disposal of the transfer applications pending before District Court. Assuming that the counsel was aware of filing of the original petition, I fail to see how it would amount to professional misconduct. This Court in fact found merit in OP 32195/99 and disposed of the same' with a direction to the District Judge to dispose of TP No. 56 of 1996 within two weeks from the 25/01/2000. That would indicate that the party was justified in filing the original petition before this Court. Ultimately, District Judge dismissed the transfer applications, ofcourse the District Judge is free to do so, being a judicial function and if the party is aggrieved he can work out his remedy, but remarks made by the District Judge against the lawyer, in my view was totally unwarranted.