X Vs. Y

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for transfer of Civil Suit No. 130/6/77 from the court of Solan to the Court at Simla principally on the ground that when the hearing of the case took place on 1 10 1977 in presence of the then Chief Justice of this Court who was on inspection tour, the Advocate of the other side repeatedly interrupted the arguments of the Advocate of the petitioner, and even though he used "abusive and highly defamatory language" against the petitioner's Advocate, the presiding officer of the Court could not restrain him. The contention is that the Presiding Officer of the court did not restrain the Advocate of the other side because he "seems to be hand in glove" with the counsel of the other side.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case, which form the background, can be stated as under. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed the above referred suit for possession of an agricultural land against the present petitioner in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Solan in the month of June, 1975. When the suit reached the stage of arguments, the petitioner moved an amendment application by which he wanted to amend his written statement In the original written statement which is filed in the suit he raised the plea that he is owner of the suit land having acquired it by gift made by the plaintiff's ancestor in the year 1948. He has further contended in the original written statement that apart from the gift, he has also become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. On these pleas, the parties proceeded with the case, but ultimately when the case reached stage of arguments, amendment application was moved with a prayer that the petitioner defendant should be allowed to amend his written statement by raising a plea that he has also become a tenant in the land. This amendment application was rejected by the trial court on 13 8 1977, and against that . order the petitioner preferred revision application No. 96 of 1977. This revision application was admitted by this Court on a limited ground, but on the stay application this Court ordered that the trial Court should not be restrained from hearing the arguments but should be restrained from pronouncing the judgment disposing of the case.

(3.) NOW , the case of the petitioner defendant is that when his counsel commenced his arguments, the plaintiffs' counsel started interrupting him. At this interruption the petitioner's counsel protested to the court and requested the learned Judge "to note how the opposing counsel was behaving even in the presence of the most respectable and sacrosanct head of the Judiciary in the State and what he must be doing in his court on other occasions". It is further alleged by the petitioner that soon thereafter, the Chief Justice left the court room, but after that the plaintiffs' counsel again started using "offensive and insulting language" towards his opposite counsel who then sought the protection of the court. It. is further alleged that the counsel of the other side "was so much encouraged that he used abusive and highly defamatory language against the defendant's counsel." The petitioner admits that thereafter the learned Sub Judge adjourned the arguments to 29 10 1977, but the petitioner's counsel "told him frankly that it was no use arguing in the case before him, and that he would not come again to argue this case before him and against that counsel, who had insulted, abused and threatened him more than once". It is alleged that the learned Judge who was presiding over the Court took no action against the plaintiffs' counsel for his attitude and on the contrary encouraged him, and therefore, it appeared that he was "hand in glove" with the plaintiffs' counsel.