Advocates Are Officers Of Court, Not Expected To Stake Claim In Property Left Behind By Clients: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by an Advocate staking a claim in a disputed property, allegedly left behind by his client in his name.A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,“The lawyers practising in the Court are considered Officers of the Court, who are expected to help the Courts in advancing the cause of justice, while ensuring justice for the poor, downtrodden and deprived. There is a big responsibility on the shoulders of practising advocates to maintain the grace and reputation of the institution. They are not expected to claim the interest in the property left behind by their clients.”Briefly put, one Sarabjit Singh filed a suit claiming that Surendra Mohan Tarun (now deceased) sold him the suit property but later dispossessed him unlawfully.The deceased-defendant, represented by the Appellant-Advocate, claimed that he did not sell the property and was the owner thereof.After the defendant's demise, the plaintiff noted the suit premises had a name plate of Defendant's counsel Suraj Saxena (Appellant herein), thus seeking appointment of a Receiver.Aggrieved by appointment of a Receiver, the lawyer moved the present petition claiming that defendant had bequeathed the immovable property in his favour vide registered Will.The High Court at the outset noted that the original documents produced by the Plaintiff had undergone forensic examination and the same were found to be genuine. Moreover, the legal heirs of the deceased also staked claim in the property.Thus, it held that the civil court had rather served the cause of justice by appointing a Receiver, “because the Appellant, at the cost of repetition, claims that his client (Defendant) executed a Will in his favour.”As such, it dismissed the lawyer's plea.Appearance: Mr. Aatreya Singh, Adv. for Appellant; Mr. Udit Arora, Advocate for LRs.; Mr. Nishant Datta, Mr. Chirag Rathi, Mr. Kunal Sejwal, Mr. Dipesh Kashyap and Mr. Yatharth Rathi, Advocates for Respondent (Plaintiff)Case title: Suraj Saxena v. Sarabjit SinghCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 986Case no.: FAO(OS) 75/2025Click here to read order

Advocates Are Officers Of Court, Not Expected To Stake Claim In Property Left Behind By Clients: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags