ORDER
B.S.A. Swamy, J.
1. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.
2. For purpose of convenience the parties are referred as arrayed in the plaint.
3. While allowing CRP No. 1454 of i 996 by setting aside the orders of the trial Court in IA No. 1535 of 1994 dated 13-10-1995 this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within one month from the date of receipt a copy of the order since the suit is of the year 1987. Thereafter in CMP No. 21671 of 2001, the Additional Junior Civil Judge sought extension of time by one month from 20-10-2001 the day on which the time granted by this Court was going to expire, by stating that after receipt of the orders both the Counsel did not appear before the Court on 1st, 3rd and 4th of October, 2001 on the ground that the advocates are on boycott and at the instance of the parties the matter was adjourned to 8-10-2001. On that day the plaintiff examined PW1 in part and the matter was adjourned to 16-10-2001 the day on which the plaintiff filed an application seeking adjournment of the case by 20 days on the ground of ill health by enclosing a medical certificate which was opposed by the defendants. Ultimately the trial Court directed the parties to go ahead with the trial of the suit from 18-10-2001.
4. As Dasara vacations intervened in the meantime, the officer sought for extension of time till November, 2001. The request of the officer was acceded to by this Court in its order dated 23-11-2001. Again in CMP No. 23525 of 2001, a further representation was made by the officer to grant further extension of time by one more month from 1-12-2001 by stating that after completion of examination of the plaintiff, the Counsel wanted to examine the son of PW1 for which the other side objected to. Ultimately the Counsel agreed to file a memo to the effect that he is not going to examine PW1’s son on 9-11-2001 while filing some documents to receive and to recall the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a memo on 15-11-2001 stating that she is not examining her son. On 16-11-2001 she did not appear in the Court and on 20-11-2001 she filed a petition seeking adjournment as she requested the Commissioner to give evidence and on allowing that application she examined the Commissioner as PW2 on 22-11-2001. After completion of his examination on 23-11-2001, PW3 was examined and the matter was adjourned to 26-11-2001 for further evidence of the plaintiff. On 26-11-2001 the plaintiffs Counsel filed a petition seeking adjournment of the case on the ground of illness of the plaintiff and having allowed the application the Court adjourned the matter to 29-11-2001 for further evidence of the plaintiff finally. Since the time sought for in this application expired, by an order-dated 31-12-2001, this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit by the end of January, 2002 if not already disposed of.
5. To my surprise the Trial Court once again sought for extention of time by one more month stating that on 25-1-2002 the matter is posted for further cross-examination of DW2 (i.e.,) the witness of the defendants and the Counsel for the plaintiff filed as many as seven applications and that necessitated seeking of adjournment of the matter till the end of February, 2002. Having, seen the dilatory tactics adopted by the Counsel for the plaintiff, I directed the Counsel for the plaintiff in the High Court to get instructions from his counter part about the relevancy of those seven petitions filed by him before the Court below and if the Court comes to the conclusion that those petitions are frivolous it will not hesitate in directing the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh to initiate proceedings for the professional misconduct on his part. The officer was also directed to send a report on the present stage of the suit. Pursuant to this order, the Counsel for the plaintiff in the lower Court appeared before this Court on 1-3-2002 and he has gone to the extent of contending that the factual narration given in the order of this Court in the revision petition is not correct and he filed OS No. 414 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Chittoor seeking mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions made on the wall AB which are obstructing free flow of light and air to the premises of the plaintiff, so on and so forth. Along with the suit he filed IA No. 62] of 1987 seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making any further constructions. The trial Court seemed to have granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants filed CMA No. 20 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Court, Chitloor and the appellate Court while vacating the injunction granted by the Court below by an order dated 3-8-1987 observed that the defendants be and are hereby directed not to raise wall found parallel to AB wall by the Commissioner in his report to the top level till the disposal of the suit. Thereafter perhaps when the suit became ripe for trial the plaintiff filed IA No. 1535 of 1994 in September, 1994 seeking amendments to the plaint which are extracted below:
” 1. Add the following to the para 18 of the plaint at page No. 8:
Moreover, by raising the floor of the defendants premises to 6 feet as mentioned above, the defendants, their men, agents, servants and other followers are deliberately and maliciously got access to interfere with the plaintiffs privacy by peeping through the ventilators VI to V8 in ground floor and ventilator V9 and windows W1 and W2 in the first floor by causing the great inconvenience and hardship to the plaintiff.”
2. Add the following as (b)(i) in para 25 of the plaint
“to issue mandatory injunction against the defendants to remove the sand and mud covering of the defendants floor to the depth of 6 feet abetting to western wall of the Plaintiff AB; to prevent the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs privacy of the plaintiff through the windows and ventilators of the plaintiffs fixed to the western wall of the plaintiff’s house i.e., V1 to V8 in ground floor and W1 and W2 and V9 in the Ist floor as marked in rough sketch appended to the plaint.”
6. The trial Court by an order dated 30-10-1995 seemed to have allowed the second amendment and rejected the other amendment. Against this order the plaintiff filed CRP No. 1454 of 1996 and the same was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, he filed IA No. 629 of 1998 seeking the following amendment to the plaintiff:
(1) Add the following as para 20(A)
20(A) It is submitted that after filing of this suit the defendants have made the following constructions and further caused obstructions for the free passage of light and air to my house and also further encroached with privacy of the plaintiff’s house through the ventilators V1 to V8 in ground floor and ventilator V9 and Windows W1 and W2 in first floor of the plaintiff’s house as stated below :
(i) The defendants constructed five storied building to the height of 52 feet;
(ii) The defendants did not obtain approval of plan from Chittoor Municipality to construct II floor to IV floor which is illegal and unauthorized construction resulted in further obstruction of free passage of air and light and encroachment of privacy of the house of the plaintiff.
(iii) The defendants left only 10 feet space in ground floor between AB wall and eastern wall of defendants building at Ventilators VI to V4 and 7 feet at rear side defendants building at ventilators V5 to V8.
(iv) The defendants further constructed 1 to 4 floors leaving space only 2 feet 5 inches at ventilators VI to V4, 9 inches space at ventilator V6 to V8 in ground floor and 9 inches space at ventilator V9 and 9 inches space at windows Wl and W2 in 1st floor of plaintiffs house between AB wall and eastern wall of defendants house.
(2) To add at prayer the following as paras (i)(b)(1)
Para (1)(b)(1) : to remove all the constructions and obstructions made in the defendants site preventing and diminishing of free passage of light and air and interfering with the privacy of the plaintiffs house through the ventilators V1 to V8 in Ground Floor an ventilator V9 and windows Wl and W2 in he 1st floor of the plaintiffs house.
7. The trial Court allowed the Ist amendment and rejected the other amendments. Aggrieved by the said order and decree the petitioners filed CRP No. 1407 of 1999 before this Court. Having found that the relief sought for in the amendment petition relates to the subsequent events and they have no relevancy at all to the relief sought for, this Court set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the revision petition, further directing the trial Court to dispose of the main suit itself within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
8. The events that have taken place and the way the plaintiff has taken the Court for granted in not co-operating with the Court below in disposing of the suit was also adverted to. Now at the stage of almost completion evidence on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiff filed as many as seven applications (i.e.) IA Nos. 50, 51 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of 2002 seeking different reliefs.
9. Now the issue that falls for consideration of this Court is whether any of the seven applications filed by the Counsel for the plaintiff has any relevancy to the disposal of the suit, if not, whether the conduct of the learned Counsel amounts to interference with the administration of justice and such an action amounts to professional misconduct and if so whether disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated against him?
10. Before considering this aspect, it is useful to refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court, (1) in “D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 221, wherein the Full Bench of the Supreme Court at para 12 observed as follows:
“the term “misconduct” as not been defined in the Act. However, it is an expression with a sufficiently wide meaning. In view of the prime position which the advocates occupy in the process of administration of justice and justice delivery system the Courts justifiably expect from the lawyers a high standard of professional and moral obligation in the discharge of their duties. Any act or omission on the part of a lawyer which interrupts or misdirects the sacred flow of justice or which renders a professional unworthy of right to exercise the privilege of the professions would amount to misconduct attracting the wrath of disciplinary jurisdiction.
Again in para 22 their Lordships observed as follows:-
“a lawyer in discharging his professional assignment has a duty to his client, a duty to himself. It needs a high degree of probity and poise to strike a balance and arrive at the place of righteous stand…..While discharging duty to the Court, a lawyer should never knowingly be a party to any deception design or fraud.”
According to their Lordships that –
“professional misconduct is grave when it is a deliberate attempt at misleading the Court or an attempt at practising deception or fraud on the Court.”
Their Lordships further held at paras 24 and 25 as follows:
‘It has been a saying as old as the profession itself that the Court and Counsel are two wheels of the chariot of justice. In the adversarial system, it will be more appropriate to say that while the Judge holds the reigns, the two opponent Counsel are the wheels of the chariot. While the direction of the movement is controlled by the Judge holding the reigns, the movement itself is facilitated by the wheels without which the chariot of justice may not move and may even collapse mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between the Bench and Bar smoothen the movement of the chariot. As responsible officers of the Court, as they are called – and rightly, the Counsel have an over all obligation of assisting the Courts in a just and proper manner in the just and proper administration of justice. Zeal and enthusiasm are the traits of success in profession but over zealousness and misguided enthusiasm have no place in the personality of a professional, (para 24)
“A Counsel, in the zeal to earn success for a client need not step over the well-defined limits or property, repute and justness. Independence and fearlessness are not licences of liberty to do anything in the Court and to earn success to a client whatever be the cost and whatever be the sacrifice of professional norms, (…para 25)
11. In N.G. Dastane v. Srikant S. Shivde and Anr., , their Lordship of the Supreme Court after noticing the facts of the case was constrained to hold as follows:-
“Advocates who take adjournments on flimsy grounds arc guilty of professional misconduct and they should be dealt with under the provisions of Advocates Act 1961 for such misconduct and equally the judicial officers who grants such adjournments are also at fault and answerable to the High Court.”
12. The judgment suggested that suitable disciplinary action can be taken against the judicial officer who grants adjournments on mere making a request on flimsy grounds,
13. Keeping in view the dicta laid down in the above two cases now I will deal with the seven interlocutory applications filed by the Counsel for plaintiff one after the other, to see whether they have any relevancy to the proceedings.
(1) IA No. 50 of 2000: This application is filed to reopen the suit and to recall PW1 to mark the photographs that were taken after closure of the evidence of the plaintiffs perhaps to show that a multi storied building was constructed after the orders of the appellate Court in CMA No. 20 of 1987. Admittedly in this case the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed on 26-11-2001. So it cannot be said that said such a huge building could be constructed after the closure of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff wants to bring this fact that the construction of building was made during the pendency of the suit nothing prevented her and her witnesses to speak about this factum and also to mark documents, if any, during the evidence of the plaintiffs. Now on 28-2-2002 when the evidence of the defendants was coming to an end, the plaintiff filed this petition obviously to drag on the proceedings.
(2) IA No. 51 of 2002: This application is filed seeking stay of the suit till the disposal of the petitions in particular IA No. 54 of 2000 filed for restoration of physical features of the defendant’s building as existed on the disposal of CMA No. 20 of 1987. Admittedly this CMA was disposed of on 3-8-1997 and if the defendants were making any constructions in violation of the orders of the Court nothing prevented the plaintiff to take steps that are necessary to injunect the defendants from making any constructions in violations of the orders of the Court. Having kept quiet for nearly 15 years the plaintiff comes with a petition and I have no manner of doubt to record a finding that there are no bona fides on the part of the plaintiff in filing this petition.
The matter can be viewed from another angle also. If the defendants constructed the building in violation of the Court orders the question of demolition comes only when the relief sought for by the plaintiff is acceded to by the Court. At any rate mis is not the stage where such an application can be filed and it is intended to see that the suit is not disposed of on some pretext or the other.
(3) I.A. No. 52 of 2002: This application has been filed to condone the delay in filing a petition to receive the photographs and negatives taken by one photographer Mr. Ananta of Sri of Srieram Photo Studio, Chittoor on 10-1-2002. The relevancy of this petition is already considered in IA No. 52 of 2002.
(4) IA No. 53 of 2002 : This application is filed under Order 39, Rule 2(a) to commit the defendants to civil prison for disobedience of the orders passed in CMA No. 20 of 1987 on the ground that they made constructions in violations of the orders of the Court in the said CMA. On the ground of filing of this petition he sought for stay of the proceedings till the disposal of this IA and till restoration of the physical features of the building by the defendants in terms of the order of the Court in CMA No. 20 of 1987. Assuming for a moment that the defendants violated the orders of the Court dated 3-8-1987 any application under Order 39, Rule 2(a) has to be filed within one year from the date of alleged violation. From the photographs it is seen that at the time of filing of the suit the defendants constructed only ground floor by 17-6-1987 and as per the photographs filed by the plaintiff, it is seen that two or three floors were constructed above the ground level and all the floors cannot be said to have been constructed within the preceding one year from the date of filing of the application. In fact the Court below dismissed this application as time barred.
(5) IA No. 54 0/2002 : In this application, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants have changed the physical features of the building after the orders were passed in IANo. 621 of 1987 and CMA No. 20 of 1987 and as such they should be directed to restore the physical features of their building as they existed prior to the orders of this Court passed in CMA No. 20 of 1987. I have no manner of doubt that such a relief cannot be granted by the Court without proper pleadings and framing of the issues and the evidence to be let in. The relief sought for in this application travels beyond the scope of the suit and a relief, which he was not asked for in the main case cannot be granted in the interlocutory application more so without reference to the pleadings. This application also lacks bona fides.
(6) IA No. 55 of 2002: This application is filed to recall DW1 for further cross-examination by stating that the plaintiff has not advised his advocate to put some important questions in the cross-examination of DW1. From the papers furnished by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, it is seen that the evidence of DW1 started on 21-12-2001 and continued on 27-12-2001, 2-12-2002 and 9-1-2002 and ended on 24-1-2002. This application was filed on 28-1-2002. It is bitter pill to swallow that the plaintiff and her Counsel have forgotten to put some important questions to DW1 in his cross-examination and they could not know of these questions four days after the completion of the evidence of DW1. In fact she filed an application to reopen the matter and recall her (i.e.,) IA No. 50 of 2002 and another IA No. 55 of 2002 to recall DW1 without stating the purpose for which the applications are filed and the further evidence to be let in this case.
(7) IA No. 56 of 2002 : This application is filed requesting the Court to make local inspection of the suit locality and note the physical features of the suit building and wall or appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for that purpose by contending that though the defendants in their counter stated that they left 10 feet from wall AB, but the distance between the parallel wall, the AB wall from ground floor roof to top floor roof is only 2 feet 9 inches and this extended parallel wall, blocks the normal free passage of air and light through the ventilators and windows in the AB wall. At the time when the plaintiff filed IA No. 1535 of 1994 seeking amendment of the plaint she simply stated that the defendants, their men, servants deliberately and maliciously got access to interfere with her privacy by peeping through their ventilators both on the ground floor and the first floor that were fixed to the western wall of her house facing the defendants’ premises. Now she started saying that because of the narrow distance that is left the compound wall AB and the wall of the newly constructed building is only 2 feet 9 inches and it is blocking the normal free passage of air and light through the ventilators.
14. From the narration of the facts it is seen that filing of number of amendment applications to the plaint right from the institution of the suit and other interlocutory applications one after another the conduct of the plaintiff clinchingly establish that she has no intention to proceed with the suit but only to drag on the proceedings endlessly. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff having appeared in the Court stated that the suit filed by his client was dismissed. This fact adds strength to the view taken by this Court that the plaintiff is adopting dilatory tactics and somehow intends to drag on the proceedings of the Court without any end. With the result the suit filed in 1987 for mandatory injunction for removal of mud and sand on the roof of the ground floor on the ground that it is interfering with the passage of free air and light could not be disposed by the Courts for long 15 years and in the meantime the defendants constructed two more floors. I have no hesitation to hold that the Counsel for the plaintiff forgetting the fact that he is an officer of the Court whose paramount duty is to uphold the law of the land not only wrongly advised his client in filing of the applications one after another but also tried to mislead the Court. Thus the conduct of the advocate amounts to professional misconduct and I have no option left except to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. This view of mine is supported by the judgments of the Supreme Court supra.
15. I have not come to this decision in a bit of anger or on the spur of the moment I was expressing anguish at the manner in which the members of the legal fraternity are conducting the cases and bringing disrepute to the institution both in the Court and during my interaction with the members of the Bar and I was trying to impress upon them that while they owe an obligation to their clients in representing their cases, as officers of the Court they have to bear in mind that a duty is cast on them to advise their clients properly and see that they assist the Court in deciding the case or Us in a manner known to law but not to circumvent the law. In fact during my visits to the out stations as a portfolio Judge. 1 was repeatedly impressing upon the advocates to see that administration of justice won’t become a laughing stock in the public and the minimum code of ethics they are expected to follow in not only rendering speedy justice but also the real justice. But there is no change in their attitude. This Court while disposing the revision cases that are being filed on interlocutory orders more so at the time of examining the witnesses, having fell that the matter has to be disposed of one way or the other keeping in view of its long pendency was directing the Courts below to dispose of the cases by fixing a date, the members of the Bar are not co-operating with the Courts inspite of such direction by the High Court and they are continuing the same old dilatory tactics in dragging on the proceedings. Hence a time has come to send proper message to the members of the Bar. Having felt that this is a fit case I passed this order. T hope and trust that the members of legal fraternity will realize their duty to their clients, Court and the nation as well.
16. Office to communicate the order
along with plaint and other documents No. 18
filed in the Court by the Counsel for the
plaintiff to the Bar Council of Andhra
Pradesh for taking action as directed in
the order.