- (1.) NONE is present for the appellant due to an indefinite strike call given by the Bar Associations at Jodhpur and Jaipur. Mr. Nand Kumar Gotewala, for the respondent, who is appellant in the connected Civil Misc. Appeal No.510/2012, is present in the Court.
(2.) IT is indeed a very unfortunate and disturbing state of affairs prevailing in the Courts that the judicial work has been hampered because of the strike call for indefinite period given by the Bar Associations at Jodhpur and Jaipur. Apart from the fact that there is no justifiable reason for giving such a call, the Court is constrained to pass this order as the strikes and boycotts have become almost a regular feature in the courts and that too on baseless and frivolous grounds, which not only hampers the judicial process and paralyses the Court's work, but also causes lot of hardships and irreparable losses to the litigants, for whom the Institution stands. The Courts have not taken any stern action in this regard so far, probably because of the apprehension that the harmonious relations between Bar and the Bench would be spoiled, which again might cause greater hardship to the litigants. One cannot be oblivion of the fact that the Advocates are not only the officers of the Court but also one of the important components of the justice delivery system, however it appears that now the time has come to remind the Advocates about their duties towards the clients and the Courts.
(3.) WITHOUT elaborating further on this issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court time and again in various decisions as regards the role and the rights and duties of the Advocates. The Apex Court in case of Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Subhash Kapoor (2001) 1 SCC 118, considering all previous judgments had held that the strike/boycott by the lawyers affects not just the Members of the legal profession, but obstructs the process of Court, which is intended to secure Justice. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court in the said case are reproduced as under:- "5.....When the advocate who was engaged by a party was on strike there is no obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that account. Time and again this Court has said that an advocate has no right to stall the court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the courts or even boycott any particular court. Vide U.P. Sales Tax Service Assn. Vs. Taxation Bar Assn. (1995) 3 SCC 716; K. John Koshy Vs. (Dr.) Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624; Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs. Jacks Aviation and Koluttumottil Razak Vs. State of Kerala (1999) 1 SCC 37. " It has been further observed in para 22 as under :- "22. Generally strikes are antithesis of progress, prosperity and development. Strikes by the professionals including the advocates cannot be equated with strikes undertaken by the industrial workers in accordance with the statutory provisions. The services rendered by the advocates to their clients are regulated by a contract between the two besides statutory limitations, restrictions ad guidelines incorporated in the Advocates Act, the rules made thereunder and rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Abstaining from the courts by the advocates, by and large, does not only affect the persons belonging to the legal profession but also hampers the process of justice sometimes urgently needed by the consumers of justice, the litigants. Legal profession is essentially a service-oriented profession. The relationship between the lawyer and his client is one of trust and confidence. " ;