In the recent case of Rajani v. Vipul Mittal, the Allahabad High Court bench of Justice JJ Munir expressed disapproval of bar members who chose not to participate in court proceedings. The court stated that a bar association was not created to impede the court’s operation and interfere with the performance of its sovereign duties.
“This conduct of the Bar is not only reprehensible, but also downright illegal. The Bar Association is, after all, a registered society and cannot hold up the functioning of a Sovereign Court by their resolutions. Whatever they do, they do it at the peril of the litigants whose interest their Members represent…”
The statement was made in the course of a hearing about a challenge to a trial court order that refused to recall its decision in a partition suit. Since the defendant was attempting to delay the lawsuit, the trial court had issued the injunction. The orders of the trial court had likewise been sustained by the revisional court. The High Court voiced its displeasure after learning that the case had been repeatedly postponed due to bar members withdrawing from judicial work for a variety of reasons.
The Court expressed shock that the functioning of the Court was put on hold due to ongoing Bar elections and declared that associations should not interfere with the execution of a court’s sovereign duties.
“It is beyond imagination that the work of a Court would be brought to a grinding halt, because the elections of a registered society are to be held,“
The Court Stated
The bar association was described as nothing more than a registered society established for the welfare of its members and to effectively support the operation of each individual member, despite the fact that bar members were senior officials of the Court.
The judge noted after reviewing the order sheet in the current case that there had been determined attempts to postpone the lawsuit’s trial and that the defendant had been given ample opportunity by the trial court.
As a result, the plea was rejected and it was determined that the trial court had no grounds to overturn the challenged judgement.
Advocates Anil Kumar Aditya and Radhey Shyam Dwivedi represented the petitioner, while Shreya Gupta and Ravi Anand Agarwal represented the respondent.
Read Order
