'Being Junior At Bar No Immunity': Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Apologise To High Court To Seek Relaxation Of Costs Imposed

The Supreme Court on (January 08), in a case where the Gauhati High Court imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on an advocate for his attempt to mislead the court, requested the High Court to reconsider the same after the advocate tenders an unconditional apology. Additionally, the Top Court considered that the advocate was a junior at the Bar. Conditional on the lawyer tendering an unconditional apology in writing before the Single Judge of the High Court, we would request the Single Judge to take an appropriate view of the matter having regard to the fact that the mistake was committed by a junior at the Bar,” ordered Justices Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra At the same time, the Court also appreciated the concern of the High Court by stating 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. While the Court noted that being a junior at the Bar is not an immunity, the Court expressed its confidence that the High Court will take a sympathetic view by passing an appropriate order."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 factual matrix of the case is such that there was a suit pending in the trial court, in which the present petitioners were parties. However, due to a delay of 22 days in filing the written statement, the Trial Court imposed the cost of Rs.20,000/-. Challenging the same, the petitioners (represented by Mr. Haque) approached the High Court. As a part of his submission, the counsel referred to the time limit for filing a written statement as 120 days instead of 90 days. It may be noted that as per Order VIII Rule 1, the time limit for filing the written statement is thirty days, which can be extended to 90 days. However, for commercial suits, the time limit is 120 days. The High Court, expressing dissatisfaction with this submission, dismissed the application while imposing the above-mentioned cost. “Therefore, taking an exception to the submission made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners to project the period of limitation for filing written statement to be 120 days, the Court is of the considered opinion that this application deserves to be dismissed in limine at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. Nonetheless, for making an attempt to mislead the Court, the Court is inclined to impose a cost of Rs.20,000/-…,” ordered the High Court. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 34Click here to read the order

'Being Junior At Bar No Immunity': Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Apologise To High Court To Seek Relaxation Of Costs Imposed

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags