Case Title
Rajani Vs. Vipul Mittal and 4 Others
Date:
19th May, 2022
Bench:
Hon'ble Justice J.J. Munir
Parties:
Petitioner: - Smt. Rajani
Respondent: - Vipul Mittal and 4 Others
Subject
A petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the petitioner’s application 85 C to recall orders dated 26/10/2021 and 14/12/2021.
Important Provisions
Section 85 C - Power of Court to make orders
Section 89 C - Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed.
Overview
- An order dated 26/10/2021 rejected an application for adjournment by the defendant
- A decree was sought by the plaintiff to the effect that the defendants prior to the partition cannot mortgage or alter the nature and character of the house in dispute.
- The suit was of the year 2013. The suit had proceeded to trial and it appeared that the plaintiff had filed his evidence on affidavit and 16.10.2021 was the date scheduled for cross-examination of P.W.1.
- On the said date, the Counsel for the defendant made an application for adjournment, which was opposed by the plaintiff. The application for adjournment was rejected and opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 was closed.
- The suit was adjourned endlessly.
- In the said order, it was recorded that the Bar Association has proposed no work from 17.12.2021, due to elections of the Bar.
- The impugned order passed by the Trial Judge shows that he had rejected the application 85C seeking recall of order dated 14/12/2021.
- It appeared that there was some order of this Court, directing the suit to be decided within two years and that schedule was violated because of the dilatory tactics adopted by the defendant
Issues raised
- Whether the Bar Association could obstruct functioning of a Court?
Judgment Analysis
- The Court established that there were efforts to delay the trial of the suit.
- The Trial Judge in between 28.01.2021 and 26.10.2021 had taken note of the orders of this Court in the order recorded on 02.08.2021, saying that the High Court had issued directions for concluding the trial within two years.
- Resolutions of the Bar, asking its members to abstain from judicial work, were absolutely unlawful, in view of the directions of the Supreme Court.
- The Court relied upon these Supreme Court cases, Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another 1, Common Cause, a registered society and others v. Union of India and others, Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2018) 17 SCC 27 and District Bar Association, Dehradun through its Secretary v. Ishwar Shandilya and others, to support the above-mentioned statement.
- The learned Trial Judge had observed that the High Court had directed the suit to be decided within two years, but despite repeated requests to the learned Counsel, no one was appearing. This was so because the Bar had abstained from judicial work.
- If the learned Counsel refuse to appear and so do the parties, the Court was supposed to pass orders in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that provides for orders to be made when parties, both or one, are absent.
- The Bar Association was not established to obstruct functioning of the Court and interfere with the discharge of its sovereign functions.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by stating that the conduct of the Bar was not only reprehensible, but also downright illegal. Bar Association was, after all, a registered society and cannot hold up the functioning of a Sovereign Court by their resolutions.The petition was dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
