AN ADVOCATE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO sentences in the order of the learned Munsiff are rather unhappy. He says that the disposal of the suit is pressed by the district Judge. The District Judge not being a party to the suit nor having appeared on behalf of any party should not have been allowed to press for the disposal, though of course the District Judge as the appellate authority was competent to direct the Munsiff to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Probably all that was meant by the Munsiff was only that the District Judge had directed an expeditious disposal of the suit. That, he could have said in better language. He was also not justified in suggesting in the sentence just before the penultimate sentence of the order that the advocate had failed in his responsibility towards the client. Such irresponsible attacks on the members of the Bar who, owe duty not only towards a particular client and a particular court but towards the clients in all the cases they accepted engagements and towards all the courts in which those cases are pending, should be avoided as far as possible. On account of miscalculations it may sometimes happen that an advocate is not able to appear when a case is called and it may also be that the court may have no ground to allow an application for restoration made by such an advocate, but that is no reason why courts should so light-heartedly pass strictures in their orders on the unfortunate advocate. The two sentences referred to above are therefore expunged from the order of the Munsiff and the civil revision petition is dismissed subject to the above observation and direction. A copy of this order will be sent to the learned District Munsiff. Order of Court below "the counsel was not present to cross-examine the defendant when the witness was put to the box for examination. The suit was heard and taken up for disposal as it is a suit of the year 1954, the disposal of which is pressed by the District Judge. The counsel concerned has been intimated several times that the court cannot wait for his convenience especially so far as old suits are concerned. If he has engagements in other courts it is his duty to see that arrangements are made for proceeding with the suits in this court also. At least his duty to his client imposes so much responsibility on him as an advocate. The ground alleged is not sufficient to repost a case which has been already taken up for disposal. Hence dismissed".