NANDU @ GANDHARVA SINGH Vs. RATIRAM YADAV AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 6/12/2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhander, District Datia in Civil Suit No.29A/2014.

(2.) Before considering the facts of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to consider certain incidents, which have taken place in the Court at the time of argument of this case.

(3.) In the first half of the day when the case was called, the associate counsel of the counsel for respondent no.1 prayed for time to argue the matter. Since this petition is pending from 2017 and the further proceedings of the civil suit have been stayed, therefore, this Court refused to adjourn the matter and at the request of the counsel for respondent no.1, the matter was passed over. At 2:30 PM when the case was taken up, Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for respondent no.1, appeared and started his arguments by saying that "in the first half of the day his junior had prayed for adjournment and since this Court has refused to adjourn the matter, therefore, under compulsion he has come to argue the matter". The submission made by the counsel for respondent no.1 was not to the good taste, however, this Court ignored the said submission and requested the counsel for the respondent no.1 to proceed further with his arguments. During arguments, on two occasions again Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for respondent no.1, submitted that as he was not ready with the arguments, but since this Court has refused to adjourn the matter, therefore, under compulsion he is arguing the matter. It was further submitted by Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for respondent no.1, that old matters are pending and, therefore, the old matters should be decided first and this matter is of the year 2017 and only because there is stay of the further proceedings in the civil suit, therefore, this matter cannot be treated as an old matter. When it was clarified by this Court that the cases are being taken up as per the serial numbers of the cause-list and the case has not been taken up out of turn, even then he stated that relatively new matter should not be decided first, even if they are listed in the cause-list. As the submissions made by Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for respondent no.1, were beyond tolerance, therefore, this Court requested Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for respondent no.1, to publicly take the responsibility of seeking adjournment by passing a resolution in the Bar Association to the effect that unless and until both the lawyers agree for arguing the matter, the Court should not hear the matter, then he fairly conceded that he is not ready to take the responsibility of delay. Under these circumstances, Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for respondent no.1, was informed that he had filed his Vakalatnama on 20/2/2018 and today we are in the month of January, 2019, that means near about more than eleven months have passed, but still if he has failed to prepare the case, then only he is at fault. It is submitted by Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for respondent no.1, that since his party (respondent no.1) is a rustic villager, therefore, he is not in a position to obtain the certified copy of the order of the trial court, therefore, he could not prepare the case. The submission made by the counsel for respondent no.1 cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if respondent no.1 is a rustic villager being an illiterate person, then the counsel for respondent no.1 could have given him in writing the details of the documents, which he wants to go through before preparation of the case and respondent no.1 could have informed his local counsel for obtaining the copies of the said documents. For the lapses on the part of the counsel for respondent no.1 or respondent no.1 himself, this Court cannot keep the matter pending unnecessarily and specifically when the counsel for respondent no.1 is not ready to take the responsibility of delay in decision of the petition, then the counsel for respondent no.1 has no authority either legally or morally to make prayer for adjournment.