AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagadeesan, J.—Mr. Karuppan, counsel for the Petitioner represented that he has given a letter to My Lord the Hon''ble the Chief Justice to
post this matter before some other learned Judge on the ground that he is not inclined to appear before this Court. Repeatedly I have adjourned
this matter thrice enabling him to get suitable orders from My Lord The Hon''ble The Chief Justice. Today, he represented that he was informed by
the Registry that My Lord the Hon''ble Chief Justice is waiting to see as to what I propose to do in this matter.
He further contended that whenever a counsel expresses his inability or displeasure to appear before the Court, the Court, in the normal course
has to direct the registry to post the case before some other learned Judge. He also requested this Court to direct the Registry to post the case
before some other learned Judge following the same procedure.
I am not inclined to accept the proposal made by the counsel for the Petitioner as a general procedure or practice to be adopted especially in
view of the recent Supreme Court judgment, reported in Judgment Today 1998 (7) S.C. 579 (Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Private
Limited). The Supreme Court has held that,
If any counsel does not want to appear in a particular Court, that too for justifiable reasons, professional decorum and etiquette require him to give
up his engagement in that court so that the party can engage another counsel. But retaining the brief of his client and at the same time abstaining
from appearing in that court, that too not on any particular day on account of some personal inconvenience of the counsel but as a permanent
feature, is unprofessional as also unbecoming of the status of an advocate.
From the above extracted portion, it is clear if a counsel does not like to appear before a learned Judge, it is his duty to withdraw from the case
and he cannot make a request to the presiding Judge to post the case before some other learned Judge.
Beforever the writ petition was numbered, the counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Karuppan knows fully well that the case will be posted only before
this Court, as the portfolio Judge. When he does not want to appear he has not only filed the case and allowed it to be listed before this Court,
thereafter he made a request to My Lord the Hon''ble The Chief Justice for a direction to remove the case from out of the list of this Court. The
conduct of the counsel in doing so, will amount to nothing but unprofessional one, in the language of the Apex Court.
Relying upon the above principle laid down in the above referred judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, I am not inclined to post the case
before some other learned Judge. It is open to the counsel to withdraw from the case and advise the Petitioner to engage some other counsel. If
the Petitioner does not engage any other counsel within three days, notice may be issued to the Petitioner.