Case Details
Citation: AIR 1999 SC 287
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: S. Saghir Ahmad and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 13 November 1998
Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 5710 of 1998 (Arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 16326 of 1998)
Background and Facts
The case arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant, Mahabir Prasad Singh, for the recovery of possession of a property located in Delhi. The suit was instituted before the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Tis Hazari. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Delhi Bar Association passed a resolution on 15 May 1998, calling for a boycott of appearances before the particular ADJ concerned. The respondent’s counsel, being a member of the Association, submitted to the Court that he would not appear before that judge and simultaneously sought the transfer of the case.
What made the matter extraordinary was that the respondent’s counsel neither withdrew from the case nor arranged alternative representation for the scheduled hearings. On 21 May 1998, when the appellant’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (seeking judgment based on admissions) came up for hearing, the respondent’s counsel submitted a petition requesting that the matter be transferred suo motu by the judge, citing the Bar Association's boycott. The petition was dismissed by the ADJ, who observed that such a transfer could not be ordered under Section 151 CPC and that the proper forum for a transfer was the District Judge under Section 24 CPC. The ADJ proceeded to list the case for orders on the pending application.
Subsequently, the respondent filed a revision petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the dismissal of the transfer petition. The High Court entertained the revision, issued notice, and stayed proceedings in the trial court. The appellant—an octogenarian—while having no objection to the transfer itself, challenged the maintainability of the revision petition and the High Court’s interim stay, through a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised
Whether a case can be transferred solely on the basis of a resolution by a Bar Association boycotting a particular judge.
Whether the conduct of an advocate who refuses to appear in court while retaining the client’s brief is professionally acceptable.
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a revision petition against an interlocutory order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether mutual consent between parties can constitute sufficient ground for transferring a case to another court.
Arguments and Observations
The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the respondent’s counsel. The Court emphasized that once an advocate accepts a brief, professional duty requires him to appear and represent the client. If, for any reason—especially due to institutional or collective decisions like a Bar Association’s boycott—an advocate does not wish to appear before a particular judge, then ethical propriety demands that he withdraw from the case altogether, enabling the client to engage alternative counsel.
The Court observed that boycotts or strike calls by lawyer associations cannot obstruct the normal course of judicial proceedings. The judiciary cannot be browbeaten or pressured into abandoning its constitutional and legal mandate to deliver justice. The action of the respondent’s counsel—retaining the brief but refusing to appear—was held to be unprofessional and unbecoming of the dignity of the legal profession.
On the issue of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, the Supreme Court examined the scope and limitations imposed by the 1976 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code. It reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the order in question either
would have finally disposed of the case if made in favour of the petitioner, or
would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury if allowed to stand.
The impugned order passed by the ADJ, according to the Court, did not satisfy either condition. Hence, the High Court committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision and staying trial proceedings.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the plea that both parties were agreeable to the transfer of the case to another judge. It rejected this argument, noting that courts cannot become a venue for "forum shopping." Allowing transfer merely because both parties are in agreement could set a dangerous precedent, allowing litigants to choose their forum and avoid particular judges.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings in the Delhi High Court. It directed the Additional District Judge at Tis Hazari to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The Court declined to accede to the plea for transfer and held that such a request must be grounded in valid legal reasons, not in consensus or pressure from lawyer associations. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that judicial independence and the integrity of the legal process must be preserved against all forms of coercion and unprofessional conduct.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of professional responsibility among lawyers and reinforces the principle that the judicial process must not be derailed by boycotts, strikes, or external pressures. It also clarifies the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC post-amendment and reiterates that mutual consent cannot justify forum shopping. The ruling stands as a strong affirmation of judicial independence and the duty of advocates to uphold the dignity of their profession.