#### •
,
609
SATYENDRA NARAIN SINGH & OTHERS.
_v._
RAM NATH SINGH & OTHERS.
_August 23, 1984_
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.J
_Standards of professional conduct and etiquette-Duty of the_ _C.?urt_ _owed !Jy_
_the_ _Advocate-Propriety_ _of accepting a brief and_ _appearing before his father-_
_Rule 6 of Section I_ _of_ _ChaPter_ _II_ _of Rules_ _1nade_ _by_ _the_ _Bar_ _Council of_ _India_
_under_ _Section_ _49(1)_ (C) _of the_ _Advocates Act, 196/, explained._
The appellants and respondents are members of an association called the
State Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Bihar. Respondent
No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Patna in the
capacity of a life member of the Society and obtained an injunction restraining
the appellants and respondent No. 3 from interfering with the working of the
Society. Having lost the appeal against the order of interim injunction before
the Additional District Judge VI, Patna, the appellants filed a revision appli·
cation before the High Court of Patna. On July 3, 1980, when the revision
application came up for hearing before Mr. Justice S.K. Jha, Shri Bindeswari
Chaudhury, Advocate appearing for the appellants took an adjournment for
July 9, 1980. On Juty 8, 1980 the appellants changed their advocate and
engaged Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha another advocate and son of Mr. Justice
S K. Jha to appear for them. The learned Judge was surrrised to find that the
appearance of his son was filed in a case of which he was already seized. How.
ever, on July 9, 1980, instead of Sailendra Kumer Jha appearing for the appellants, Shri Bindeswari Chaudhury appeared and did not press the revision appJi.
cation saying that he would rather return the papers to his clients. The learned
Judge dismissed the application since it was not pressed. Hence the appeal
after obtaining Special Leave of the Court by the appellants.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Since it is not quite clear whether the appeilants made an
untrue representation to Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha that the case was not ready
for hearing and that it had not even appeared in the monthly c·ause list, the
appellants and their advocate cannot be condemned unheard. _Audi a/teram_
_partem._ [611F-G]
A
B
0
D
E
F
G
. 2. There are a few black sheep in every profession, nay, in every walk
of IJf<h B\l~ few a.s they are, they tqrriish! by their machinations, the fair name ff
### •
#
A
**B**
61) SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] I s.c.R. ·
**of age.old institutions.** **Therefore,** **persons** **who** **occupy** **high** **public** **offices** **1** **nust**
**take care** **to** **see that** thos~ **who** **claim to** **be** **close** **to** **them** **are** **not** **allowed to**
**exploit that closeness, alleged** **or** **real.** **On** **the** **facts** **of this** **case,** **it** **can** **only** **be**
**said that Shri Sailendra** **Kumar Jha** **took a correct** **decision** **in** **not** **appearing** **in**
**that case any** **further** **and,** **with** **respect,** **his** **father jurtice S.K.** **Jha** **acted** **in** **the**
**best** **traditions** **of** **the** **Judiciary** **in** **seeing that** **his** **son** **withdrew** **from** **the** **case.**
**It** **is** **better** **that** **in** **such circumstances** **the** **Advocate son,** **rather** **than** **the** **Judge**
father, withdraws from the case. [611G-H, 6J2A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 3373 OF 1984
C Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 9th July, 1980 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 1655/77
**D**
E
**F**
**G**
_D.N. Mukherjee_ and _N.R._ _Choudhary_ for the Appellants
_B.P. Singh_ for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRA CRUD, C.J. Special Leave granted limited to the
question of the propriety af briefing a son to appear before his
father.
In Bihar, there is an Association called the State Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. As if other forums do not
provide enough opportunities for factious fights, there was an unseemly wrangle amongst the members of the Society over its day-today management. So much indeed, that inspired by the lofty ideal
of preventing cruelty to animals, they forgot that they did not have
to be unkind to their own brotherhood. Their petty disputes led to
the filing of a suit in the Court of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court,
Patna. That suit was instituted by respondent 1, who claims to be
a life member of the Society. He filed an application in the suit
for an injunction restraining the appellants and respondent 3 from
interfering with the working of the Society. That application was
allowed by the trial Court. The appeal filed against the order of
interim injunction was dismissed by the learned Additional District
Judge-VJ, Patna. So much was enough litip.1tive wastefulness.
But a litigation, once begun, has to run its full course, particularly
when it is believed that what is involved is prestige and so-called
principles.
**H** The appellants filed a revision application in the High Court
,
S.N. SINGH _v._ R.N. SINGH _(Chandrachud. C.J.)_ 611
of Patna against the order of the District Court. A learned single
Judge of the High Court issued a Rule on that application, calling
upon respondent I to show cause why the order of injunction should
not be set aside. The revision application came up for hearing before Justice S.K. Jha on July 3, 1980 when Shri Bindeswari
Chaudhury, Advocate, who appeared for/the appellants asked for
an adjournment. The learned Judge adjourned the case to July 9,
1980. On July 8, the appellants engaged Justice S.K. Jha's advocate
son Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha to appear for them. The learned
Judge was surprised to find that the appearance of his son was filed
in a case of which he was already seized. It is alleged that the
appellants told Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha that the case was not
ready for hearing and that it was not even on the monthly cause
list. It appears that. the learned advocate had made it clear to
them that he will not appear in the case if it was listed before his
father.
On July 9, Shri Bindeswari Chaudhury did not press the
revision application saying that he would rather return the papers
to his clients. The learned Judge dismissed the application since
it was not pressed .
In these circumstances, nothing requires to be done in the
matter of the interim injunction. It has to operate during the
pendency of the suit. We hope that the parties will remember that
the dumb animals for whose welfare they have floated the Society,
, will be crying for their attention while they will be litigating, at
leisure, the right to manage the affairs of the Society.
**A**
B
##### c
**0**
E
It is not quite clear whether the appellants made an untrue **F**
representation to Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha that the case was not
ready for hearing and that it had not even appeared in the monthly
cause list. We do not want to condemn them m;1heard. _Audi_
_alteram partem._
#### '\
## . There are a few black sheep in every profession, nay, in every G
I walk of life. But few as they are, they tarnish, by their machinations,
the fair name of age-old institutions. Therefore, persons who
occupy high public offices must take care to see that those who
claim to be close to them are not allowed to exploit that closeness,
**H**
### •
\
###### •
' ·'
A
B
###### c
612 SUPllEME COUU REPORTS (1985] 1 S.C.R.
alleged or real. On the facts of this case, we will only say that
Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha took a correct decision in not appearing
in the case any further and, with respect, his father Jnstice S. K.
Jha acted in the best traditions of the Judiciary in seeing that his
son withdrew from the case. It is better that in such circumstances
the advocate son, rather than the Judge father, withdraws from
the case.
With these observations, the appeal is dimissed. There will
be no order as to costs.
S.R. _Appeal dismissed._
