http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SATYENDRA NARAIN SINGH & OTHERS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM NATIH SINGH & OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1984

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1755            1985 SCR  (1) 609  1984 SCC  (4) 217        1984 SCALE  (2)200

ACT:      Standards of professional conduct and etiquette-Duty of the Court  owed by  the Advocate-Propriety  of  accepting  a brief and appearing before his father-Rule 6 of Section 1 of Chapter 11  of Rules  made by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1) (C) of the Advocates Act, 1961, explained.

HEADNOTE:      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  application  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 July 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 surprised to find  that the  appearance of his son was filed in a case of which  he was  already seized.  However, on July 9, 1980, instead of Sailendra Kumar Jha appearing for the appellants, Shri Bindeswari  Chaudhury appeared  and 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. 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 appellants 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  cause list,  the appellants and  their advocate  cannot be condemned unheard. Audi alteram partem. [611F-G]      2. There  are a  few black  sheep in  every profession,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

nay, in  every walk  of life.  But few  as  they  are,  they tarnish, by their machinations, the fair name 610 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, alleged or  real. On  the facts of this case, it can only be said that  Shri Sailendre  Kumar Jha took a correct decision in not appearing in that case any further and, with respect, his father  justice 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, 612A-B]

JUDGMENT:          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal                       No.3373 OF 1984      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the 9th July, 1980 of the Patna High in  Court in C.R. No. 1655/77      D.N. Mukherjee and N.R. Choudhary for the Appellants      B.P. Singh for the Respondent      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.  Special Leave granted limited to the question of  the propriety  of   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-to day 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-VI, Patna. So much was enough litigative 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.      The appellants filed a revision application in the High Court 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 1 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.      It is  not quite  clear whether  the appellants 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  cause list.  We  do  not  want  to condemn them unheard. Audi alteram partem.      There are  a few  black sheep in every profession, nay, in every 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, 612 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 Justice  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. 613