{"id":179387,"date":"1956-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1956-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956"},"modified":"2015-07-07T10:33:11","modified_gmt":"2015-07-07T05:03:11","slug":"lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956","title":{"rendered":"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 250, \t\t 1957 SCR 167<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nLALIT MOHAN DAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nADVOCATE-GENERAL, ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/11\/1956\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR  250\t\t  1957 SCR  167\n\n\nACT:\nLegal  Practitioner-Report--Procedure-Not open\tto  District\njudge  to send back report to the Subordinate  civil  judge-\nReport\tonce made Proceedings can terminate by- Final  Order\nof  the\t High Court only--Member of the Bar-Officer  of\t the\nCourt-Duty  to client and Court-Dignity and decorum  of\t the\nCourt must be upheld-Conduct-Not a matter between individual\nmember of Bar and a member of Judicial\tService-Disciplinary\naction-Punishment-Mitigating  circumstances-Interference  by\nSupreme\t Court-Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of  1879),  s.\n14.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant pleader who already had strained relation with\nthe Munsif made certain objectionable remarks in open Court,\nsuggesting  partiality\tand unfairness on the  part  of\t the\nMunsif.\nThe  Munsif  drew up a proceeding under ss. 13,\t 14  Of\t the\nLegal  Practitioners  Act,  1879, against  the\tpleader\t and\nsubmitted  a report to the High Court through  the  District\njudge.\nAn application to the Additional District judge was filed by\nthe pleader, for time to move the High Court to get an order\nto have the matter heard by some judicial Officer other than\nthe\n168\nMunsif\twho  had  made the report.   One  month's  time\t was\naccordingly  granted, and for some reason which is not\tvery\napparent, the Additional District judge sent the record back\nto the Munsif.\tThe Additional District judge made an effort\nto  settle  the trouble.  It was arranged that\tthe  pleader\nshould\tapologise and a resolution should be passed  by\t the\nmembers\t of  the local Bar  Association.   Accordingly,\t the\npleader\t appeared  in the Court of the Munsif  and  filed  a\nwritten\t apology  and expressed his regret, and\t the  Munsif\ndropped\t the  proceeding.   It\twas  later  found  that\t the\nresolution  was\t not passed in the terms  suggested  by\t the\nAdditional  District  judge,  and the  terms  of  settlement\nsuggested  by  the  latter  were  not  fully  carried\tout.\nAccordingly, the proceeding was re-opened and the report was\nre-submitted  to  the District judge who  with\this  opinion\nforwarded  the\tsame  to the High  Court.   The\t High  Court\nsuspended the pleader for 5 years.\nIt  was contended on behalf of the appellant that there\t was\nno  valid reason for reviving the proceeding, after  it\t had\nonce  been  dropped  on the submission\tof  an\tapology\t and\nexpression of regret.\nHeld, that the report under s. 14 of the Legal Practitioners\nAct is a report which is submitted to the High Court.\tWhen\na  report  is  made to the High Court  by  any\tCivil  judge\nsubordinate to the District judge, the report shall be\tmade\nthrough\t  the  District\t judge\tand  the  report   must\t  be\naccompanied  by the opinion of such judge.  Once the  report\nhas been made, it is not open to the District judge to\tsend\nback the record to the Subordinate Civil judge, and no order\npassed by the Subordinate Civil judge can have the effect of\nterminating or bringing to an end the proceeding.  The\tHigh\nCourt alone is competent to pass final orders on the report.\nA  member of the Bar is an officer of the Court, and  though\nhe owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court\nall that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of\nhis client, he also owes a duty to the Court and must uphold\nthe  dignity  and  decorum  of the  Court  in  which  he  is\nappearing.  Making amputations of partiality and  unfairness\nagainst\t the  subordinate  Civil  judge\t in  open  Court  is\nscandalizing the Court in such a way as to pollute the\tvery\nfount  of justice ; such conduct is not a matter between  an\nindividual  member of the Bar and a member of  the  judicial\nService.\nWith  regard to disciplinary action against a member of\t the\nBar, the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere\twith\nthe  order  of\tthe  High  Court  unless  there\t are   clear\nmitigating circumstances.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 176 of\t1956
\nand Petition No. 165 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\t by   special\tleave\tfrom   the   judgment\t and
\norder  dated March 15\/23,1955 of the Orissa High  Court,  in
\nCivil Reference No, 4 of 1954,
\n\t\t\t    169<\/span>
\nN.   C.\t Chatterji, D. -N.  Mukherjee and R.  Patinaik,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 1.
\n1956.  November 29.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nS.K. DAS J.-The appellant is Shri Lalit Mohan Das, a pleader
\nof about 25 years’ standing. who ordinarily practiced in the
\nCourts\tat  Anandapur  in the district\tof  Mayur  bhanj  in
\nOrissa.\t The Munsif of Anandapur, one Shri L. B. N. S.\tDeo’
\ndrew  up  a  proceeding under ss. 13 and  14  of  the  Legal
\nPractitioners  Act,  1879, against the pleader\tfor  grossly
\nimproper  conduct in the discharge of his professional\tduty
\nand  submitted\ta  report  to the  High\t Court\tthrough\t the
\nDistrict  Judge\t of Mayurbhanj on December  12,\t 1953.\t The
\nDistrict  Judge\t forwarded the report,\taccompanied  by\t his
\nopinion, to the High Court of Orissa on March 9, 1954.\t The
\nrecommendation of the Munsif was that the pleader should  be
\nsuspended  from\t practice for one year.\t The  reference\t was
\nheard  by the High Court of Orissa’ and by its\torder  dated
\nMarch  15, 1955, the High Court came to the conclusion\tthat
\nthe pleader was guilty of grave professional misconduct\t and
\nsuspended him from practice for a period of five years with.
\neffect from March 15,1955,
\nShri  Lalit Mohan Das then obtained special leave from\tthis
\nCourt to appeal against the judgment and order of the Orissa
\nHigh  Court  dated  March 15 \/23, 1955.\t  He  also  filed  a
\npetition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.  Learned counsel
\nfor  the petitioner has not pressed the petition under\tArt.
\n32  and nothing more need be said about it.  We proceed\t now
\nto deal with the appeal which has been brought to this Court
\non special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The charges against the appellant were the following On July
\n15,  1953,  the\t appellant was appearing on  behalf  of\t the
\ndefendant  in Suit No. 81 of 1952 pending before the  Munsif
\nof  Anandapur.\t On that date, there were  two\tother  suits
\npending\t before the same Munsif.  There were  petitions\t for
\ntime in all the three suits.\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span>
\n170<\/span><\/p>\n
The  Munsif wanted to take up the oldest suit  for  hearing,
\nand the oldest suit being Suit No. 54 of 1952, it was  taken
\nup first and five witnesses for the plaintiff were examined.
\nSuit  No. 81 of 1952 was postponed to August 18, 1953.\t The
\nappellant, who appeared for the defendant in that suit,\t was
\ninformed  of  the  postponement.   When\t so  informed,\t the
\nappellant made a-remark in open Court and within the hearing
\nof  the\t Munsif to this effect: ” If the Peshkar  is  gained
\nover,  he can do everything.” He then left the\tCourt.\t The
\nMunsif\twas  surprised\tat the remark  made  and  asked\t the
\nappellant to explain his conduct, by means of a letter\tsent
\nthe  same day.\tAs the appellant sent no reply,\t the  Munsif
\nwrote  again  to the appellant on July 18,  1953.   To\tthis
\nletter the appellant sent the following reply:
\n“Dear Sir,
\nI  am painfully constrained to receive memo after  memo\t for
\nsome imaginary act of mine not in any way connected with  my
\naffairs\t for  which if any explanation is at  all  warranted
\nofficiallv.\n<\/p>\n
For  your second memo I felt it desirable as a gentleman  to
\nreply.\n<\/p>\n
Further I may request you to be more polite while addressing
\nletters to lawyers.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t       Yours faithfully,
\n\t\t\t\t   Sd. L. M. Das.  Pleader.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is obvious that the letter of the appellant was  couched
\nin  very  improper  terms  and\tconsiderably  strained\t the
\nrelation   between  the\t Munsif\t and  the  appellant.\t The
\nappellant,  it\tmay  be stated here, was at  that  time\t the
\nPresident  of the Anandapur Sub Divisional  Bar\t Association
\nwhich  consisted of about 14 legal practitioners.   On\tJuly
\n21,  1953, Shri B. Raghava Rao, who was the  predecessor  in
\noffice of Shri Deo, came to Anandapur.\tHe was the guest  of
\nShri A. V. Ranga Rao, the Sub- Divisional Officer.  One Shri
\nN. C. Mohanty, a pleader of.  Anandapur and who was  related
\nto  the\t appellant, -came -to invite the two  Munsifs  to  a
\nluncheon  on  the occasion of a housewarming  ceremony.\t  On
\nhearing about the trouble between Shri Deo
\n171<\/span>
\nand  the  appellant, Shri B. Raghava Rao interceded  and  it
\nappears\t that  the appellant was persuaded to  come  to\t the
\nhouse of the Sub-Divisional officer and to ,say that he\t was
\nsorry  for what had happened in court on July 15, 1953,\t and
\nthat-  he did not happean to insult Shri Deo; Shri  Deo,  it
\nappears,  accepted the apology and for the time\t being.\t the
\ntrouble between the two was smoothed over.
\nA  second  incident, however, took place  on  September\t 25,
\n1953.\tThe  appellant\twas appearing  for  a  defendant  in
\nanother suit before the Munsif It was Suit No. 101 of  1952.
\nThis  suit was fixed for hearing on September 21, 1953.\t  As
\nthat date was a holiday, the suit was taken up ‘on September
\n22, 1953.  Another suit, Suit No. 86 of 1952, was also fixed
\nfor hearing on that date but Shri N. C. Mohanty, pleader for
\nthe defendants in that suit, took time on the ground of\t the
\nillness\t of  one  -of  the  defendants,\t which\tground\t was
\nsupported by a medical certificate.  In Suit No. 101 of 1952
\nalso,  the  defendants applied for time. on  the  ground  of
\nillness\t of  their  witnesses; but there  being\t no  medical
\ncertificate  in support of the allegation of illness and  no
\nwitnesses  having  been summoned in that suit,\tthe  learned
\nMunsif refused to grant time, and one Shri P. N. Patnaik who
\nalso  represented  the defendants agreed to go on  with\t the
\nsuit.\tThe  suit  was then heard for two days,\t i.  e.,  on
\nSeptember  22  and  23,\t 1953, and at  the  request  of\t the
\ndefendants’  lawyers the hearing of arguments was  postponed
\nto  September 25, 1953.\t On that date the appellant came  to
\nCourt accompanied by his junior Shri P. N. Patnaik, for\t the
\npurpose of arguing the case on behalf of the defendants.  At
\nthe  very  outset of his arguments the\tappellant  made\t the
\nfollwing remarks:The Court is unfair to me, while the  Court
\nwas  fair to Mr. Misra (meaning Shri Bhagabat  Prasad  Misra
\nwho  was  appearing for the plaintiffs in that\tsuit).\t The
\nCourt  is  accommodating and granting  adjournments  to\t Mr.
\nMisra  while it was not accommodating me.”. The Munsif\ttook
\nobjection  to these remarks but nothing\t untoward  happened.
\nThe appellant concluded his arguments.\n<\/p>\n
172<\/span><\/p>\n
A  third  incident  brought matters to a  climax,  and\tthis
\nincident  took place on September 29, 1953.   The  appellant
\nwas appearing for the defendants in Suit No. 6 of 1951.\t  In
\nthat   suit   a\t preliminary  point  of\t  jurisdiction\t and
\nsufficiency  of\t court fees was raised and Shri\t B.  Raghava
\nRao,  the predecessor in office of Shri Deo, had dealt\twith
\nthe point and decided it against the appellant’s client.   A
\nCivil  Revision taken to the High Court was  also  rejected.
\n‘The appellant, however, again pressed the same\t preliminary
\npoint  and on September. 29, 1953, Shri Deo passed an  order
\ndismissing  the preliminary objection.\tWhen this order\t was
\nshown  to the appellant, he stood up and shouted at the\t top
\nof   his  voice-I’I  on\t behalf\t of  the  Bar\tAssociation,
\nAnandapur, challenge the order of the Court,.  The Court has
\nno principle as it is passing one kind of order in one\tsuit
\nand  another kind of order in another suit.” The Munsif,  it
\nappears,  was disgusted at the conduct of the appellant\t and
\nhe  stood up and, left the Court room, directing  the  bench
\nclerk to send a telegram to the District Judge., A  telegram
\nwas  accordingly  sent to the District Judge asking  him  to
\ncome to Anandapur.  The District Judge asked for a  detailed
\nreport\twhich  was sent on October 1, 1953.  On\t October  5,
\n1953, the Munsif drew up a proceeding against the  appellant
\non  a  charge  under s. 13 of the  Legal  Practitioners\t Act
\nreferring  therein to the three incidents  mentioned  above.
\nThe  appellant was asked to show cause by October 26,  1953.
\nOn  November 3, 1953, the appellant denied  the\t allegations
\nmade  and  took\t up the attitude that  the  Munsif  was\t not
\ncompetent to hold the enquiry on the ground that the  Munsif
\nwas in the position of a complainant.  The appellant gave  a
\ndifferent  version  of what happened on the three  dates  in
\nquestion.  With regard to the incident of July 15, 1953, the
\nappellant’s plea was that some other client had come to him.
\nin connection with a criminal case pending in another  Court
\nand  to that client the appellant had said that\t an  enquiry
\nshould be made from the Peshkar as to the date fixed.\tWith
\nregard\tto the incident, on September 25, 1953, the plea  of
\nthe appellant was^ total denial, and with regard to the last
\nincident, the appellant said
\n173<\/span>
\nthat  the Munsif behaved rudely- and wanted to’ assault\t the
\nappellant, for which the appellant appears, to have filed  a
\npetition  to the Governor of Orissa on September  30,  1953,
\nfor according sanction for the prosecution of  the Munsif.
\nIt may be stated here that on October 8, 1953, a  resolution
\nwas  passed, numbered Resolution 6, which purported to be  a
\nresolution on behalf of the Bar Association, Anandapur.\t The
\nresolution was in these termis:\n<\/p>\n
“Resolved  that on September 29, 1953, the Court’s  (Munsif)
\naction\ton the. dais in rising from the chair,\tthumping  on
\nthe  table, shouting at the top of his voice, and using\t the
\nwords ‘shut up’ against one honourable member (President) of
\nthis  Bar Association is quite\tunprecedented.,\t undesirable
\nand  affecting\tthe  prestige  of  the\tBar  and  may  cause
\napprehension in the mind of the litigant public to get\tfair
\njustice.”\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t be  stated  that some\tother  members\tof  the\t Bar
\ndissociated  themselves from the a id resolution at a  later
\ndate.  The proceeding against the appellant under the  Legal
\nPractitioners  Act  stated,  as we  have  said\tearlier,  on
\nOctober\t 5,  1953,  and\t the  appellant\t filed\this  written
\nstatement  on  November 3, 1953.  On November 5,  1953,\t the
\nMunsif\tsent the record to the District Judge in  connection
\nwith  the plea of the appellant that the enquiry  should  be
\nmade  by some other judicial officer.  The  District  Judge,
\nhowever,  took the view that under the provisions of ss.  13
\nand 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act the enquiry should  be
\nmade by the Munsif himself and the records were\t accordingly
\nsent back to the Munsif.  Thereafter, the appellant  non-co-
\noperated and did not appear at the enquiry though more\tthan
\none communication was sent to ham The enquiry was  concluded
\non  December 11, 1953, and the Munsif submitted his  report.
\nto,.  the High Court through the District Judge on  December
\n12,  1953.   On December 22, 1953, the\tappellant  filed  an
\napplication  to\t the Additional District Judge for  time  to
\nmove the High Court to get an order to have the matter heard
\nby some other judicial officer.\t One month’s time was
\n174<\/span>
\naccordingly  granted and the Additional District Judge,\t for
\nsome reason which is not very apparent, sent the record back
\nto  the\t learned  Munsif In  the  meantime,  the  Additional
\nDistrict  Judge,  it appears, made an effort to\t settle\t the
\ntrouble.   On December 23, 1953, he met the members  of\t the
\nBar Association and the Munsif at the inspection bungalow at
\nAnandapur  on  his way to Mayurbhanj.  At  a  -meeting\theld
\nthere,\ta  copy of a draft resolution to be  passed  by\t the
\nmembers\t of the Bar Association, Anandapur, was\t made  over.
\nThis draft resolution was in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
“This  Association  re\trets  very  much  that\tan  incident
\nrelating to the bench clerk of the Civil Court. should\thave
\nled to the subsequent unhappy differences between the  Bench
\nand  the  members  of the Bar.\tAs in the  interest  of\t the
\nlitigant  public  it is felt not desirable  to\tallow  these
\nstrained  feelings  to continue\t further,  this\t Association
\nunanimously  resolves  to withdraw Resolution  No.  6  dated
\nOctober\t 8, 1953, passed against the Court  and\t communicate
\ncopies\t of   the   same  to   the   addressees\t  previously
\ncommunicated.\tIt is further resolved to request the  Court
\nto  see to the desirability of withdrawing  the\t proceedings
\nthat had been started against the various members of the Bar
\nand  their registered clerks on their expressing  regret  to
\nthe Court individually in connection with those proceedings.
\nIt is further resolved that the members of the Bar  involved
\nin  the proceedings be requested to take immediate steps  in
\nthis direction.\t The Association hopes that the bench  clerk
\nwho  has  -to some extent been the cause for  this  friction
\nbetween the Bench and the Bar would be replaced by a  person
\nfrom a different place at an earlier date.”
\nOn  January 8, 1954, the appellant appeared in the Court  of
\nthe  Munsif  and filed a written apology and  expressed\t his
\nregret.\t His signature wag taken on the order-sheet and\t the
\norder of that date reads:\n<\/p>\n
“Sri  L. M. Das, pleader, appears and expresses his  regret.
\nSo  the\t proceeding  No. 2 of  1952  is\t dropped.   Intimate
\nAdditional District Judge.”\n<\/p>\n
No resolution, however, was passed in the terms
\n\t\t\t    175<\/span>
\nsuggested by the Additional District Judge.  On January\t 19,
\n1954, two resolution,% were passed in the following terms:
\n“No.  1. In – view of the fact that  past  misunderstandings
\nbetween\t the  Munsif  and members of the Bar  caused  by  an
\nincident  relating  to the bench clerk of the  Civil  Court,
\nhave  been  removed by amicable\t settlement  of\t differences
\nexisting  between both parties, it is  unanimously  resolved
\nthat  resolution  No.  6  dated\t October  8,  1953,   stands
\nwithdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
No.  2. It is further resolved that the copies of the  above
\nresolution be sent to the addressees previously communicated
\nof resolution No. 6 of October 8, 1953.”\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Munsif, it appears, wanted to see\t the  minute
\nbook of the Bar Association, presumably to find out in\twhat
\nterms  the proposed resolution was passed.  There was  again
\ntrouble\t between  the  Munsif and  the\tappellant  over\t the
\nproduction.  of\t the -minute book.  Ultimately,\t the  minute
\nbook  was  produced,  and on  February\t2,1954,\t the  Munsif
\nexpressed the view that the resolution passed did not  fully
\ncarry\tout  the  terms\t of  settlement\t suggested  by\t the
\nAdditional District Judge.  Accordingly, the proceeding\t was
\nre-opened  and the record was re-submitted to  the  District
\nfudge.\tThe District Judge thereupon sent the report of\t the
\nMunsif\tto the High Court accompanied by his  opinion.\t The
\nHigh  Court dealt with the report with the result  which  we
\nhave already indicated.\n<\/p>\n
The main contention of Mr. N. C. Chatterji, who has appeared
\non  behalf of the appellant is this.  He has submitted\tthat
\nthere  was  no\tvalid reason  for  reviving  the  proceeding
\nagainst the appellant, after the proceeding had been dropped
\non  January  8, 1954, on the submission of  an\tapology\t and
\nexpression  of regret by his client; because,  in  substance
\nand  effect,  the terms of the settlement suggested  by\t the
\nAdditional District Judge had been complied with.  According
\nto  Mr. Chatterji an expression of regret having  been\tmade
\nearlier\t than the passing of the resolutions on January\t 19,
\n1954,  by the Anandapur Bar Association and the bench  clerk
\nhaving already been transferred from
\n176<\/span>
\nAnandapur, the resolutions could not be in the same terms as
\nwere suggested by the Additional District Judge; but the two
\nresolutions  passed  on January 19, 1954  coupled  with\t the
\nexpression  of\tindividual regret made on January  8,  1954,
\ncomplied in substance with the essential terms of the  draft
\nresolution which the Additional District Judge had made over
\non December 23, 1953.  Mr. Chatterji has contended that this
\nview  of the matter has not been properly considered by\t the
\nHigh  Court.   He has submitted that in view  of  the  order
\npassed by the learned Munsif himself on January 8, 1954, the
\nproceeding against the appellant should be treated as having
\nbeen dropped and concluded on that date.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Chatterji has also drawn our attention to ground No.  VI
\nin  the\t petition for special leave dated May  9,  1955,  in
\nwhich the appellant said that he was ” willing and  prepared
\nto submit before this Court expressions of unreserved regret
\nand  apology for his error of judament and indiscretion,  if
\nany, in the discharge of his professional duties.”
\nWe  cannot accept the contention of Mr. Chatterji  that\t the
\norder  passed by the learned Munsif on January 8, 1954,\t had
\nthe  effect  of\t terminating  and bringing  to\tan  end\t the
\nproceeding  against – the appellant.  The learned Judges  of
\nthe  High Court rightly pointed out that the report  of\t the
\nMunsif\tdated  December\t 12, 1953, was a  report  which\t was
\nsubmitted to the High Court.  Under the provisions of s.  14
\nof  the\t Legal Practitioners Act, such a report\t had  to  be
\nforwarded   to\tthe  High  Court  by  the   District   Judge
\naccompanied  by\t his  opinion.\t It was\t not  open  to.\t the
\nAdditional  District  Judge to send back the record  to\t the
\nMunsif\tThe efforts of the Additional District\tJudge  were,
\nindeed,\t well-intentioned;  but\t at that  stage,  after\t the
\nMunsif had made his report to the High Court, the High Court
\nalone Was competent to pass final orders in the matter.
\nApart,\thowever, from that difficulty, we are not  satisfied
\nthat  the  terms of settlement suggested by  the  Additional
\nDistrict Judge were fully complied with in this case.  It is
\ntrue, that the appellant did express his
\n\t\t\t    177<\/span>
\nregret\tand to that extent the settlement suggested  by\t the
\nAdditional District Judge was carried out.  It is also\ttrue
\nthat  by  the resolutions passed on January  19,  1954,\t the
\nearlier\t resolution of October 8, 1953, was  cancelled,\t but
\none essential and important part of the terms of  settlement
\nsuggested  by  the Additional District Judge  was  that\t the
\nAssociation  should  express regret at\twhat  had  happened.
\nResolution No. I dated January 19, 1954, was so worded as to
\ngive  the impression that the misunderstanding\tbetween\t the
\nMunsif and the appellant was all due to the bench clerk\t and
\nthat  misunderstanding having been removed Resolution No.  6
\ndated  October,$,  1953,  should  be  withdrawn.   There  is
\nnothing in the resolution to show that the appellant was  in
\nany  way  at fault, a fault which he had expiated  I  by  an
\nexpression  of\tregret.\t  It may be  pointed  out  that\t the
\nearlier ,resolution, Resolution No. 6 dated October 8, 1953,
\nhad  been  communicated\t to a large number  of\tpersons\t and
\nauthorities  and  the  later resolution\t dated\tJanuary\t 19,
\n1,954,\tpassed in the diluted form in which it\twas  passed,
\ncould  hardly  undo the damage which had been  made  by\t the
\nearlier resolution.\n<\/p>\n
On  merits we agree with the High Court that  the  appellant
\nwas undoubtedly guilty of grave professional, misconduct.  A
\nmember of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty, to his client and
\nmust  place  before  the  Court\t all  that  can\t fairly\t and
\nreasonably  be\tsubmitted on behalf of his client.   He\t may\n<\/p>\n
-even submit that a particular order is not correct land may
\nask for a review of that order.\t At the same time, a  member
\nof  the ‘Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a  duty  to
\nthe  Court  in which- he is appearing.\tHe -must  phold\t the
\ndignity\t and decorum of the Court and must not do any  thing
\nto.  bring the Court itself into disrepute.   The  appellant
\nbefore us grossly’ overstepped the limits of proprieety when
\nhe  made imputation$; of partiality and unfairiness  against
\nthe  Munsif  in open Court.  In suggesting that\t the  Munsif
\nfollowed  no  principle\t -in his orders\t the  appellant\t was
\nadding insult to- injury, because the ‘Munsif -had merely up
\nheld an order of his predecessor on the preliminary point of
\njurisdiction and Court fees,
\n23<\/span>
\n178<\/span>
\nwhich order had been upheld by the High Court in s revision.
\nScandalising  the Court in such manner is  really  polluting
\nthe  very  fount of justice; such conduct as  the  appellant
\nindulged in was not a matter between an individual member of
\nthe  Bar  and a member of the judicial service;\t it  brought
\ninto  disrepute the whole administration of  justice.\tFrom\n<\/p>\n
-that point of view, the conduct-of the appellant was highly
\nreprehensible.\tThe appellant gave no evidence in support of
\nhis  version of the incidents, though he had an\t opportunity
\nof doingso, if he so desired.\n<\/p>\n
The  only point left for consideration, is the\tquestion  of
\npunishment.  On a matter of this nature, this Court would be
\nreluctant  to interfere with the order of the High Court  as
\nrespects  the  disciplinary  action to be  taken  against  a
\nmember\tof  the\t Bar who has  been  guilty  of\tprofessional
\nmisconduct.\tThere\tare,   however,\t   two\t  mitigating
\ncircumstances.\t One  is  that the  learned  Munsif  himself
\nrecommended  suspension of practice for one year only.\t The
\nappellant  was\tsuspended from practice\t with  affect,\tfrom
\nMarch 15,1955.\tThe order of suspension has now lasted for a
\nlittle\tmore  than  a year and\teight  months.\t The  second
\nmitigating  circumstance is that the appellant did  file  la
\nwritten apology\t    and\t expressed  regret  to\tthe  learned
\nMunsif\tonJanuary  8,  1954.  It  is  unfortunate  that\t the
\nappellantdid  not  take up a more contrite attitude  in\t the
\nHigh Court.  In this Court, the appellant tried to make\t out
\nthat  the  proceeding  against\thim  should  not  have\tbeen
\nrevived;  he  however  showed his willingness  to  offer  an
\napology\t and ex pression of regret Having regard to all\t the
\ncircumstances, we think that the punishment imposed errs -on
\nthe  side  of  excess.\tWe -would  accordingly\treduece\t the
\nperiod of susppusion to, two years only.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the petition, under Art. 32 is dismissed\t and
\nthe appeal is,also dismissed subject to the reduction of the
\nperiod\t of   suspension  as  indicated\t  above.    In\t the
\ncircumstances of this case, there will be, no ‘order
\nfor costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed
\n\t\t\t    179<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 250, 1957 SCR 167 Author: S Das Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Das, S.K. PETITIONER: LALIT MOHAN DAS Vs. RESPONDENT: ADVOCATE-GENERAL, ORISSA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/11\/1956 BENCH: DAS, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-07T05:03:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956\",\"datePublished\":\"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-07T05:03:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956\"},\"wordCount\":3536,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956\",\"name\":\"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-07T05:03:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-07T05:03:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956","datePublished":"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-07T05:03:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956"},"wordCount":3536,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956","name":"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1956-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-07T05:03:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lalit-mohan-das-vs-advocate-general-orissa-on-29-november-1956#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}