Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit for recovery of possession of a building filed by the appellant in the court of the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The respondent, M/s Jacks Aviation Private Ltd., filed a written statement and subsequently sought to transfer the case due to a boycott call by the Delhi Bar Association, which affected their counsel's ability to appear. The Additional District Judge dismissed the transfer application, stating that such applications should be made under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent filed a revision petition in the Delhi High Court, which stayed the trial court proceedings. The appellant, concerned about delays, expressed willingness to transfer the case but sought a decision on his application under Order XII Rule 6. The High Court's repeated adjournments led the appellant to challenge its orders in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the revision petition, as the order from the trial court was not revisable under the Code. The court emphasized that the respondent's counsel's boycott tactics could not justify the revision petition. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's proceedings and directed the trial court to proceed with the case according to law, rejecting the plea for transfer based on mutual consent. The court reiterated the importance of maintaining judicial decorum and the obligation of advocates to attend court proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Case - Jurisdictional Error - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 - High Court committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the revision petition against the order of the Additional District Judge, which was not revisable under the specific interdict of the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code. The court emphasized that no party can complain about an order resulting from their own counsel's boycott of the court proceedings. Held that the order of the Additional District Judge had no legal infirmity (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining the revision petition challenging the order of the Additional District Judge.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's revisional proceedings and directed the Additional District Judge to proceed with the case according to law.
Law Points
- Judicial process
- Bar Association boycott
- transfer of case
- jurisdictional error
- professional duty
