TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property and also for grant of a declaration that sale deed dated 10.7.1997 executed by defendant Nos.2 to 4, who were, later on, transposed as plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 (appellant Nos.4 to 6 herein), was not binding on them. Defendant Nos.5 to 7 (including respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) filed written statement on 19.2.1998. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed additional written statement on 9.8.2002. After two years and seven months, they filed an application dated 11.3.2005 under Order XVI Rule 1 (1) and (2) read with Section 151 C.P.C. supported by an affidavit of respondent No.1 for permission to file the list of witnesses, which included the name of Shri N. Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate, who was representing the appellants in the suit from the very beginning. The trial Court partly allowed the application of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and granted leave to them to file the list of witnesses but rejected their prayer for permission to cite Shri N. Ravindranath Kamath as witness No.1. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for partially declining the prayer of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are extracted below: "While citing advocate of the opposite party as a witness, the defendants 3 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 and argued that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside because the High Court committed serious error by interfering with the order of the trial Court without recording a finding that the said order is vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or any patent legal infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction and that refusal of the trial Court to permit the respondents to cite Shri N. Ravindranath Kamath as a witness had prejudiced their cause. She further argued that the respondents are not entitled to cite and summon as a witness the advocate representing the appellants because in the application filed by them, no justification was offered for doing so. In support of this argument, Mrs. Suri relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mange Ram vs. Brij Mohan (1983) 4 SCC 36. Shri S.N. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondents argued that even though his clients had filed application belatedly, the trial Court was not justified in declining their prayer for citing Shri N. Ravindranath Kamath as a witness merely because he was representing the appellants. Learned counsel submitted that at the stage of filing the list of witnesses, the plaintiffs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (I) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby." In Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra), the Court again examined the scope of the High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution and laid down the following proposition: "Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ween a lawyer and his client, which is solely founded on trust and confidence. A lawyer cannot pass on the confidential information to anyone else. This is so because he is a fiduciary of his client, who reposes trust and confidence in the lawyer. Therefore, he has a duty to fulfill all his obligations towards his client with care and act in good faith. Since the client entrusts the whole obligation of handling legal proceedings to an advocate, he has to act according to the principles of uberrima fides, i.e., the utmost good faith, integrity, fairness and loyalty. The duties of an advocate to the Court, the client, opponent and colleagues are enumerated in Chapter II of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules"). Rules 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Section II, Chapter II of Part IV of the Rules, which regulate the duty of an advocate to the client, read as under: "12. An advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from engagements, once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the client. Upon his withdrawal from a case, he shall refund such part of the fee as has not been earned. 13. An advocat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....degree of fidelity and good faith. It is purely a personal relationship, involving the highest personal trust and confidence which cannot be delegated without consent. A lawyer when entrusted with a brief, is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his clients, in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. The appellant completely betrayed the trust reposed in him by the complainants." If the prayer made by the respondents for being allowed to cite Shri N. Ravindranath Kamath as a witness is critically scrutinised in the backdrop of the above noted statement on the duties of an advocate towards his client, we have no hesitation to hold that the same was not only misconceived but was mischievous ex-facie. Neither in the written statement nor the additional written statement filed by them before the trial Court, the respondents had attributed any role to Shri N. Ravindranath Kamath in relation to the subject matter of the suit. The concerned advocate was engaged by the plaintiffs-appellants in 1996 i.e. almost 11 years prior to the filing of application by the respondents under Order XVI Rule 1(1) and (2) read with Section 151....