Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SARAN SHARMA ADVOCATE versus SRI R.P. TYAGI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Saran Sharma Advocate v. Sri R.P. Tyagi And Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 1411 of 1996 [2006] RD-AH 6169 (21 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.6

CIVIL MISC. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1411 OF 1996

Ram Saran Sharma    v.   R.P.Tyagi and others

                        ------------------------------------------  

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant in person, who is an Advocate practising in the Civil Court, Ghaziabad.

The contempt application has been filed against the non compliance of the order dated 7.12.1994 issued by this Court in Civil Revision No.500 of 1994 as well as against certain orders passed by the lower Court in various suits, pending against the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad.

It transpires that the applicant was the counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and was appearing in various matters on its behalf before the Civil Court. It transpires that without seeking previous permission from the applicant, the opposite parties, namely, the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad removed him as their counsel and appointed some other counsel. The applicant was aggrieved by the action of the respondents and submitted that under Order 3 Rule 4 C.P.C. no subsequent counsel could be appointed unless and until previous consent was taken from him and further his balance fees was remitted by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad. In this regard, the applicant filed various objections before the Civil Court in various matters of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad. The Civil Court passed  various orders from time to time directing the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad to clear the fees payable to the applicant, failing which the applicant would continue to remain as a counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad. Two such orders are dated 27.9.1994 passed in Original Suit No.189 of 1997 and order dated 12.9.1994 passed in Original Suit No.582 o9f 1989.

It transpires that against the aforesaid two orders, the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad filed Civil Revision No.500 of

                                               2.

1994 in which an  interim order dated 7.12.1994 was passed which is quoted hereunder :

" Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

It appears that Ghaziabad Development Authority, [G.D.A.] engaged Sri R.S. Sharma. After some time the G.D.A. Engaged another counsel named Sri M.P. Mittal in one case and Sri Tyagi in another case. Sri R.B.Sharma  objected that Sri Mittal and Sri Tyagi cannot conduct the case unless the fee payable to Sri Sharma is paid by the G.D.A. The Court has therefore, ordered that unless the  G.D.A. informs the Court that the fee payable to Sri Sharma has been paid, no other counsel will be allowed to appear for G.D.A.

Under the circumstances of the case it is ordered that the operation of the order dated 27.9.94 in Civil Revision No.500 of 1994 and operation of the order dated 12.9.94 in Civil Revision No.501 shall remain in abeyance if the G.D.A. Deposits an amount fixed by the Court concerned as the reasonable amount payable to Sri R.S.Sharma."

The applicant contends that even this interim order dated 7.12.94 was not complied with by the opposite parties nor have they complied with the other orders passed by the Civil Court from time to time in other matters with regard to the payment of his fee.

In the opinion of the Court, the interim order dated 7.12.94 is conditional in nature. The orders of the Court below dated 27.9.94 and 12.9.94 passed in Original Suit No. 189of 1987 and  Original Suit No.582 of 1989 were specific directions for the payment of the fee to the applicant. The Revisional Court by an order dated 7.12.1994 had directed the said orders to remain in abeyance provided, the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad deposited the amount payable to the applicant. If the amount had not been deposited by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and if the Court below has not fixed the said amount, in that event, the order dated 7.12.1994 passed by the Court would no longer remain operative  and would lapse.

In my opinion, since the order of the court dated 7.12.94 had not been complied with by the opposite parties, the said order came to an end and it was open to the applicant to get the order dated 27.9.94 and 12.9.94 executed in accordance with law.

                                              3.

In so far as the other orders passed by the Civil Courts are concerned,  if the said orders are not being complied by the opposite parties, it is open to the applicant to get those orders executed in accordance with law. No specific orders are required to be passed by this Court. The Civil Court is competent to pass appropriate orders.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that most of the cases filed against the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad in which he was appearing as a counsel, has been finally disposed of and that it would be impossible for the applicant to file execution application in all those cases separately and individually. In the opinion of the Court, the matter between the applicant and the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad is a private matter between the parties involving  contractual obligations and if any part of the contract is not in obligation violated by the opposite  party, it is open to the applicant to file a suit for recovery of the dues.

In view of what has been stated above, this Court is not inclined to continue any further with the contempt proceedings. The notices issued to the opposite parties are discharged and the contempt petition is dismissed.

Dt.21.3.2006

Ak/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.