Lawyers Required To Maintain Restraint, Shouldn't Cast Aspersions On Judicial Officers When Judicial Orders Are Challenged: Rajasthan High Court
Deprecating the practice of casting aspersions on judicial officers when judicial orders are challenged, Rajasthan High Court has urged all lawyers to maintain restraint and not make allegations against a presiding officer in the pleadings.The single-judge bench of Dr Justice Nupur Bhati held that even if there is a complaint against the presiding officer before the Chief Justice, the rights...
Deprecating the practice of casting aspersions on judicial officers when judicial orders are challenged, Rajasthan High Court has urged all lawyers to maintain restraint and not make allegations against a presiding officer in the pleadings.
The single-judge bench of Dr Justice Nupur Bhati held that even if there is a complaint against the presiding officer before the Chief Justice, the rights of the bar or that of the individual lawyers cannot become grounds for pleading on the judicial side. The lawyers should rather focus on the relevant provisions and facts of the case to obtain a favourable order, the court opined.
“…. Casting aspersions on the Judicial Officers is a practice which is required to be severely depreciated particularly when the judicial orders are challenged. Critical analysis of a judgment in right perspective has to be appreciated but casting allegations upon a Judge if allowed would hit at the root of the system of justice”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur observed after noting the nature of allegations levelled against District Judge, Jalore.
The petitioners have been directed to deposit a cost of Rs 10,000/- before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.
Background
The root of the matter pertains to self-styled Guru Jairatan Sureshwar Ji allegedly taking control of Vardhamaan Rajinder Jain Bhadavji Trust without elections. The petitioners had filed a suit for a permanent mandatory injunction against respondents for maintaining the old structures of temples.
However, at the stage of service of summons in the suit, it was observed that Respondent/Defendant No. 2 to 11, 13 to 27 (trustees) was not served. The trial court then observed that the service was not complete because Jairatan Sureshwarji and the Manager of the trust were made parties in the suit in their personal capacity, and not through the trust itself. Since the other trustees were not impleaded through the President/Manager of the Trust, the court concluded on 04.11.2023 that service can't be treated as served and Order V Rule 9 CPC won't be applicable as contended by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
Before the High Court, the counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs argued that the presiding officer was hand in glove with the counsel appearing for the defendants. In the writ petition, it has also been alleged that members of the Jalore Bar have submitted a representation to the Chief Justice against the officer's relationship with the opposite counsel. Moreover, the petitioners' counsel also cited the instance wherein the presiding officer granted bail to an accused despite recovering from the latter contraband above the permissible commercial quantity. The petitioners argued that it was the same opposite counsel that appeared for the accused in the NDPS case as well.
Court's Observations
Relying on various decisions of the apex court and Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, the single-judge bench noted that no assumptions can be made about any extraneous influence merely based on an order passed against the petitioners on the judicial side. Even in scenarios where the judge passes an order in contravention of settled legal norms, no action can be taken except placing it on the service record of the judge unless extraneous influence is proved. The court deduced the same by relying on the ratio in Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2019 SC 4852.
“The petitioners have made alternate prayer that the matter may be transferred from District Judge, Jalore to some other place while casting aspersions upon the Presiding Officer. Such practice is deprecated and in case the judicial order passed by the learned District Judge is not acceptable to the petitioners, then it is open for them to challenge the same on judicial side…”, the court further clarified.
The court also noted that the trial court was right in holding that service cannot be treated as complete when respondents 2-11 and 12-27 were impleaded in their personal capacity, and not through the President/Manager of the Trust.
“…as per the provisions laid down under Order V Rule 9 as the respondents 2 to 11 and 13 to 27 have been impleaded in their personal capacity and not through any agent who is empowered to accept the service of the summons, thus it cannot be declared that the summons have been duly served upon the respondents.”, the court concurred with the view taken by the trial court.
The respondents who were not served were residing in Peshawar whereas only Jairatan Sureshwarji and Trust's manager were present in the address given for the other respondents as well. Citing the same, the notices intended for other respondents were not received at the said address. Service of Summons by affixing the notice at the said address was also not allowed by Sureshwarji and Trust's manager.
Case Title: Babulal S/o Gebaji v. Shri Mahaveer Jain Swetamber Pedhi(Trust)
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19012/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 30