Boycott of court by pleaders was treated as serious misconduct, though regret led to no further punitive action.

Pleaders' concerted refusal to appear before a Subordinate Judge was treated as serious misconduct because it conflicted with duties owed to clients and the orderly administration of justice. The Court stated that any grievance against the Subordinate Judge should have been taken to the higher judicial authorities, not met by a boycott of the court. However, because the pleaders made an unqualified expression of regret before the Court, it considered further punitive action unnecessary in the circumstances and took no further action on the references.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pleaders' concerted refusal to appear before the Subordinate Judge justified disciplinary action under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.

Analysis: The Court treated the conduct as serious and as inconsistent with the obligations owed both to clients and to the orderly administration of justice. It held that, if there was a grievance against the Subordinate Judge, the proper course was to seek redress before the higher judicial authorities rather than to boycott the court. At the same time, in view of the unqualified expression of regret made before the Court, it considered further punitive steps unnecessary in the circumstances.

Conclusion: No further action was taken on the references against the pleaders.

---