Advocates, judges tiff to fore in High Court again

Though the second bench comprising Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice S Vaidyanathan, before whom the incident transpired, fell short of initiating action against the advocate, instead came out against the advocate in strong terms. 

The bench on noting that though this court is well within its powers to direct the Bar Council to initiate action for the slanderous statement made, said “It is not open to the advocate to adopt pressure tactics upon the bench, to which this bench will not succumb. The act of the advocate in leaving the court hall after throwing the bundle, is an act, wholly unbecoming of a legal practitioner and such an act is highly deprecated.” 

The case pertains to a plea from S Sundari seeking direction to provide electricity connection to her premises in Bhavani, Erode, which is under litigation. 

While her neighbour S Periyasamy had obtained a decree over the property in his favour nearly five years ago, Sundari’s several appeals were rejected. Subsequently, she sought the TNEB to provide her electricity connection, which was rejected twice. 

A single judge of the High Court had also upheld it resulting in her moving an appeal, which in turn had come up before the second bench. 

Advocate P Vijendran appearing for the petitioner had contended that the single judge had exceeded his jurisdiction in granting relief and that, this court ought not to have gone into the issue, when the execution petition is pending. 

‘No trust in this bench’ But when the order was being dictated, the advocate raised an objection that since this court is not inclined to hear the appeal as it had already predetermined the issue, he has no trust in this bench and wanted the matter to be posted before some other bench. 

The bench while dismissing the plea and holding that the aspersions thrown upon the bench by the counsel fall within the boundaries of contempt of court, said “After submitting arguments and on the verge of receiving an unfavourable order, if the request of an advocate to list the matter before some other bench is acceded to, it would amount to creating a precedent for other legal practitioners to follow, which would be unhealthy to the institution as a whole.”