Madhya Pradesh High Court invited suggestion for awarding designation of Senior advocate to the five applicants-18/12/2019

The following persons have applied for awarding the designation of Senior Advocate to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Advocatetanmoy Law Library has approved the candidature of following two persons out of five applicants-

01 VIJAY ASSUDANI
02 VIRENDRA SHARMA

Name of the applicants –

01  VIJAY ASSUDANI
02 VIRENDRA SHARMA
03 P.B. SANKARAN NAIR
04 GIRISH DESAI
05 SHEKHAR SHARMA

Continue Reading

Mind your Language when you are drafting a pleading: MHC

It is a primary duty of Legal Practitioners to be jealous in guarding the prestige of Courts and in maintaining dignity, decorum and decency in Courts. Nothing, whatever should be done which may bring a proceeding to ridicule or to run a Court into a platform for controversy of any kind, except disputes relating to, rights, duties and liabilities arising from the Constitution or from the law and procedure established thereunder.

(1960) JabLJ 86

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)

SINGLE BENCH

( Before : Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J )

TULSIRAM Vs. RAMCHARANLAL

C. Rev. No. 172 of 1957

Decided on : 30-09-1959

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 115
Counsel for Appearing Parties

Motilal Gupta, for the Appellant; P.L. Inamdar, for the Respondent

ORDER

Shivdayal J.

1. This revision is a type of its own. The plaintiff’s suit is for issuance of an injunction on the ground that the defendants opened two new spouts which obstructed their right of easement and also caused nuisance. When the defendants filed their written statement, exception was taken by the learned Civil Judge Second class Gohad to the language used in the written statement and directed the defendants to correct it and to pay Rs. 10/-as adjournment costs. It is against that order that this revision application was filed on November 1957 and it has now come be fore me for hearing. The progress of the suit was obstructed by this revision.

2. The written statement is in Hindi script and apart from Urdu words, English words are also used. The grievance of Shri Motilal Gupta is that no objection could be taken to the use of Urdu or English words. If it were merely that, I would have set aside the order of the trial Judge because a Court cannot insist on a particular kind of Hindi to be used. The choice of words is also to be left to the draftsman. But it is unchallengeable that language of a pleading must be chaste, sober and dignified.

3. I would like to quote here a few sentences used in the written statement:–

4. The insistence of Shri Gupta is that appropriate Hindi equivalents of English legal terms are not known and further that there is no law which accords recognition to any English Hindi Dictionary. It is also urged that Hindi should be enriched by absorption of words of other languages. I am really at a loss to understand why these things should be dragged into law Courts.

5. I am filled with uneasiness when a look at the written statement gives me the impression that is was drawn in that fashion deliberately (a) either with the object of initiating a debate on what “Hindi” as the Court language should be according to the personal notions of the draftsman or (b) with the intention to ridicule Hindi” as too poor to provide appropriate equivalents to such words of the other languages as were desired to be used. If either of these impressions is correct, oven to. some degree, the spirit behind it is not commendable. It must be remembered that a law Court does not provide a forum for each thing. It is only desirable that political controversies remain outside the Court precincts. They can be fully discussed from other platforms.

6. If the language employed in this written statement was meant to make an exhibition of the draftsman’s knowledge of several languages, it was forgotten that it also demonstrated an extreme poverty of his vocabulary. I personally do not think that this kind of attitude earned any admiration or credit for him. However, the fact remains that the type of language which is. used in the written statement, does not accord with the decorum in the Court nor with the sanctity of pleadings, Such a non-seriousness as is reflected in this written statement must be discouraged. May I put to him, who drew this written statement, what his feeling would be if in the Hindi script it were written:

meaning that ‘the defendants never discharged water from these spouts in these ten years’. Such an unwholesome mixture of several languages would, to say the least, make it a laughing stock.

7. If the draftsman so elected, it was permissible to have drawn the entire pleading in English. But the language used in this written statement is neither English nor Urdu nor Hindi; something peculiar has been produced,

8. I regard it a primary duty of Legal Practitioners to be jealous in guarding the prestige of Courts and in maintaining dignity, decorum and decency in Courts. Nothing, whatever should be done which may bring a proceeding to ridicule or to run a Court into a platform for controversy of any kind, except disputes relating to, rights, duties and liabilities arising from the Constitution or from the law and procedure established thereunder.

9. I do not see any ground for interfering in revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is in consequence dismissed with costs. The record shall be returned within three days. The parties shall appear before the trial Judge on October 14, 1959, when the defendant shall file the amended written statement in compliance with the order under revision

KESA AND OTHERS Vs. KALU AND OTHERS

Public Trust – Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act provides that no suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public Trust which has not been registered under the Act shall be heard or decided by any Court. This section does not prohibit any suit being filed against the public Trust. If this is so, it must be held that if any decree is passed against the public Trust, it will have a right to challenge the same in appeal and that would not be treated as any attempt to enforce a right on behalf of the public Trust.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

SINGLE BENCH

( Before : R.J. Bhave, J )

KESA AND OTHERS — Appellant

Vs.

KALU AND OTHERS — Respondent

C. Revision No. 501 of 1970

Decided on : 12-12-1972

Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 – Section 32
Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 69

ORDER

R.J. Bhave, J.—The non-applicants had filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of some land adjacent to the temple of Lord Krishna belonging to Balai Community. The applicants, who were defendants in the case, were said to be trespassers on the land. The defence was that the land belonged to one Pura s/o Kanji who had dedicated it to the deity of Lord Krishna op 4-3-1956. Other defences were also raised. The trial Court however, decreed the suit in favour of the third non-applicant. The applicants, therefor, filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur. During the pendency of the appeal, the non-applicants filed an application for staying the hearing of the appeal on the ground that the so called public Trust i.e. Lord Krishna Trust, was not registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The applicants opposed the application, the lower appellate Court stayed the hearing of the appeal and at the same time vacated the stay order passed by it at an earlier stage. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision.

2. Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act provides that no suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public Trust which has not been registered under the Act shall be heard or decided by any Court. This section does not prohibit any suit being filed against the public Trust. If this is so, it must be held that if any decree is passed against the public Trust, it will have a right to challenge the same in appeal and that would not be treated as any attempt to enforce a right on behalf of the public Trust. There is, therefore, no question of the appeal being stayed till the public Trust is registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act. If the the right to appeal is denied to the public Trust, which is made the defendant, it would create a very anomalous situation. All sorts of unwarranted decrees would be obtained against the public Trust and it would be denied the right to challenge the validity of the decrees only for the reason that the Trust was not registered. Apart from this I do not find any justification for vacating the stay order already named by the lower appellate Court. If the hearing of the appeal was to be stayed, it was also necessary that the execution of the decree should be stayed. It is no doubt true that in Jawaharlal Chunnilal Vs. Ramkrishna Malik alias Jafarmal, Tare, J. (as he then was) held that an appeal being a continuation of the suit would be required to be stayed till the Trust was got registered. But in that case the suit was filed by the public Trust to enforce its rights. Then the appeal was preferred, the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act came into force and it was prayed that the appeal should be pt pending till the Trust was got registered and his Lordships, acting on the principle that the appeal is the continuation of the suit, ruled that the appeal would have to be kept pending. But in that case as already stated, the appellant, i.e., the public Trust was trying to enforce its rights which were not recognised by the trial Court. The public trust, in that case, was not appearing as a defendant and it was not a defendant’s appeal. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Chettiar v. Ittimathu and Bros. AIR 1945 Mad 69 where a suit was filed against certain persons who were members of an unregistered firm. They had challenged the decree by way of an appeal. An objection was raised that the appeal would not he, as the partnership was not registered. It was held by the Madras High Court that there was no prohibition on a suit being filed against the unregistered partnership and hence if a decree was passed against it, it had every right to challenge it by way of an appeal. The provisions of section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act and section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act are similar. The same reasoning should apply in this case also.

3. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Lower appellate Court vacating the stay order is set aside.

4. Inasmuch as it was stated that an application was already made for getting the Trust registered, I do not set aside the order of staying the appeal till the registration is secured, through, in my opinion, that order is also liable to be set aside.

5. In the circumstances of the case, I do not make any order as to costs.


(1973) JabLJ 918