IN RE: G. VASANTHA PAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two applications filed by an advocate of this Court to expunge the remarks and observations against him appearing as counsel for the defendant in three suits, C.S. Nos. 54 and 55 and O.M.S. No. 9 of 1957 made by Subrahmanyam, J., in his judgment, dated 28th October, 1958, disposing of the said three suits. A list of ten passages from the judgment is given as containing remarks and observations sought to be expunged. In the above suits the plaintiff was Mrs. Leelie Kuriakose and the sole defendant was her husband, Mr. T.N. Kuriakose. C.S. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1957 were originally filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, but were transferred to this Court on the application of the defendant. In C.S. No. 54 of 1957 the wife prayed for separate maintenance from the defendant on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In C.S. No. 55 of 1957 she prayed for recovery of possession of a car, furniture and wedding presents which according to her were her exclusive property. In O.M.S. No. 9 of 1957 she prayed for a decree for judicial separation and for alimony. The plaintiff is the daughter of Dr. V.K. John, a senior advocate of this Court. The, defendant was at the time of trial Deputy Financial Officer in the Southern Railway. The parties were married on 2nd February, 1948. At the time of the marriage the defendant was an Accounts Officer in the Bombay, Baroda and Central Indian Railway. The marriage was celebrated at Madras. After the marriage the husband and wife went to the husband's house and stayed for a short time there. Then they left for Bombay where they lived till 1950 in which year the defendant was transferred to the Southern Railway and posted to Tiruchirapalli. The plaintiff and the defendant were living in the Railway Colony in Golden Rock till 1953. Thereafter the defendant was transferred to Madras. In Madras, the plaintiff and defendant were living for a short period in the Railway Colony at Teynampet and subsequently in a railway bungalow at Sterling Road, Nungambakkam. The residence of the plaintiff's father was three furlongs from where they were staying.

(2.) IT is common ground that on the 17th January, 1957, the defendant left the plaintiff at her father's house. On the night of 5th February, 1957, the plaintiff came to her husband's house. She was there on the 6th and until the evening of the 7th. That night both the plaintiff and the defendant spent in the house of one V. John, a cousin of the plaintiff. On the 6th of February the plaintiff's father took her to his house from Mr. V. John's house. The plaintiff continued to remain there. The two suits, C.S. Nos. 54 and 55 were instituted in the City Civil Court, Madras, in March, 1957 and O.M.S. No. 9 of 1957 was instituted on 22nd July, 1957.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his two applications he alleged that the learned Judge had made unwarranted and unjustified remarks and observations against him in the conduct of the suits. He submitted that questions were put by him to the witnesses on facts in. issue and relevant facts which made the facts in issue highly probable or improbable and that under no circumstances did he overstep his responsibility as counsel in the case. The questions that were put by him were relevant and were on the instructions of his client. It was his duty to elicit answers from the witnesses regarding all the allegations made in the plaint and the written statement. At no time was any objection taken to the averments made in the written statement in O.M.S. No. 9 of 1957 on the ground that they were scandalous or irrelevant.