- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Another ticklish issue concerning legal profession has winched to the fore, which perforce, has to be decided by us in this case. Should a litigant suffer penalty for his Advocate boycotting the Court pursuant to a strike call made by the association of which the Advocate was a member The question arose in this case after the suit was decreed ex parte by the trial Court in consequence of the non-appearance of the Counsel on a day fixed for hearing, on the premise of the strike call.
(3.) The appellant-Company was in occupation of a building as tenant at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. A suit was filed against the appellant for eviction from the building and other consequential reliefs which was resisted by the appellant by raising various contentions. Issues in the suit were framed by the Court and the case was posted to 26-8-1998 for trial. None of the Advocates belonging to the firm of lawyers which was engaged by the appellant appeared in the Court on the day because the Advocates were on a strike called by the Advocates' Association concerned. As nobody for the appellant was present the Court set the defendant ex parte and evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. The appellant whose place of business was in Mumbai, on coming to know of the developments, applied under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code"). But the application was dismissed and eventually the suit was decreed on 13-11-1998. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, for which the following reasoning, inter alia, has been stated : "It is settled law that strike or boycott by the Advocates is no ground for adjournment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., 1999 (1) SCC 37 : 1998 RLR 644 has held that all the Courts have to do judicial business during Court hours. It is the solemn duty of every lawyer to attend the Court. The defendant and the Counsel very well know that the case was fixed on 26-8-1998 for plaintiff's evidence. Counsel for the defendant (at least 8 Counsels had been engaged by the defendant) and the defendant deliberately did not appear on 26-8-1998. There is no bona fide or reasonable ground put forward by the defendant or their Counsel for non-appearance. They were knowing the consequences of non-appearance. I therefore, find no ground in allowing the application under Order 9, Rule 16 C.P.C. The application is hereby dismissed with costs.";