Being A Junior Is Not An Immunity From Observing Code Of Behaviour- Supreme Court Directs Young Lawyer To Tender Unconditional Apology

The Trial Court had imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the Advocate for making an attempt to mislead the Court, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court.

However, a bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “We quite appreciate the concern of the High Court that an advocate who appears before the court is first and foremost an officer of the court and is expected to discharge duties in that capacity. Having said that, we are conscious that the advocate in this case is a junior at the Bar. Being a junior at the Bar is not an immunity from observing proper code of behaviour, particularly in dealing with the court. At the same time, we have no manner of doubt that if the advocate tenders a written personal apology before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the learned Single Judge would take a sympathetic view by passing an appropriate order”.

The bench further requested the Single Judge to take an appropriate view having regard to the fact that mistake was committed by a junior at the Bar upon the advocate tendering an unconditional apology in writing.

AOR Adeel Ahmed appeared for the petitioner.

In the present matter, before the High Court, the case of the petitioners was that they were the defendants in a pending matter before the Court of Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

The petitioners did not file a written statement within the time as permitted under the provision of Rule 1 of Order VIII CPC. After a delay of 22 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, the petitioners had filed a petition for condoning the said delay and for acceptance of the written statement.

Pursuant to which, the trial Court imposed a cost of ₹ 20,000/ on the petitioners. Thus, the order of imposition of cost was assailed by the petitioners by filing the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court.

However, when the counsel for the petitioners referred to the time limit for filing the written statement as 120 days, the High Court noted that the said submission, not being in accordance with the provision of Rule 1 Order VIII CPC, amounted to misleading the Court with incorrect legal provision.

The counsel, then on the query of the Court, submitted that he relied on the provision of the Commercial Courts Act to refer to 120 days outer limit of filing written statement in a commercial suit.

Accordingly, the High Court had noted in the order, “This reply of the learned counsel for the petitioners is extremely disturbing because of the fact that if a learned counsel, who is holding the brief is unable to distinguish between the normal suit and a commercial suit. It is left open for the learned counsel for the petitioners to ponder as to whether he has committed a misconduct to address the Court without knowing the appropriate provisions of law. On a query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petition of the petitioners is not annexed to this application. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the learned trial Court has committed any jurisdictional error in imposing cost on the petitioners”.

Cause Title: Soneshwar Deka & Ors. Birsing Deka & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Order