AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.M. Lal, C.J. and S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 28-2-97 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has dismissed the writ petition holding that the same is not maintainable.
The appellant has approached the Court against the judgment and decree dated 9-12-96 passed by the Subordinate Judge in a regular Title Suit No. 167/64 of 1996.
Against the above said order, the appellant instead of taking recourse to the procedures prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In our considered opinion, the appellant has abused the process of the law. This Court can not be converted into a Civil Court for entertaining such matters. The Apex Court in a decision in the case of Durga Prasad Vs. Naveen Chandra and Others, has held that the procedures prescribed under the CPC can not be by passed and that in such matter writ petition is not maintainable.
In the case of Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran and Ors. JT 1996 (6) SC 265. the Apex Court has observed that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money by filing false and frivolous petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is a discretionary one in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.
In the instant case admittedly after the judgment and decree dated 9-12- 1996 passed by the lower court; the appellant could have vindicated his grievances by taking the recourse to the provisions of Section 96 of the CPC by filing an appeal; but instead of that, he has filed writ petition.
In this regard we may also observe that a onerous duty is cast upon the counsel in such matters to advise their clients in the right perspective in this regard we are reminded of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others, , that legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his profession and in his private and public life. The Apex Court has also observed that "of later. We have been coming across several instances which can only be described as unfortunate both for legal profession and the administration of justice. It becomes, therefore, our duty to bring in to the notice of the members of the profession that it is in their hands to improve the quality of the service they render both to the litigant public and to the courts, and to brighten their image in the society." It has further been held by the Apex Court that "the Society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised."
Therefore, frivolous and misconceived petitions should not be filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of Writ Court.
In view of the observations made above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has unnecessarily dragged contesting respondent No. 2 before this Court invoking writ jurisdiction and thereafter by filing Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore in our opinion, it is a fit case where cost is to be imposed. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the appellant. Out of this amount, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) to contesting respondent No. 2 and the rest of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) shall be paid by the appellant to the Patna High Court Council for Legal Aid Advice, Ranchi Bench Ranchi. The total cost as aforesaid, shall be paid by the appellant within a period of two months, failing which the same shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, for necessary action.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.