Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UMA KANT KHARE versus THE PRINCIPAL RICHAHARIA DEGREE COLLEGE BARUA SAGAR & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Uma Kant Khare v. The Principal Richaharia Degree College Barua Sagar & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 31946 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 235 (28 July 2003)

 

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. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 31946 OF 2003

Uma Kant Khare ------ Petitioner

 Vs.

The Principal Richharia Degree College,

Barua Sagar & ors. ------       Respondents

______

Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J

Hon'ble D.P.Gupta, J.

(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S.Chauhan, J.)

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to apprise the Court under what provisions the petitioner has been appointed nor he is in a position to explain as to what is the legal injury caused to the petitioner, for redressal of which this petition has been filed.

We  are of the considered opinion that if factual foundation has not been laid down and there are no proper pleadings, there is no occasion for the Court to entertain the writ petition as every party has an obligation to plead its case properly and substantiate the   pleadings   by  filing sufficient evidence in support thereto. (Vide Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181; Larson & Turbo Vs. State of Gujarat, 1998 (4) SCC 287; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors., 1998 (7) SCC 66; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., 1999 (1) SCC 141; Chitra Kumari Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.p. & Ors. Vs. CHANDRA PRAKash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298).

In Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence can not be sustained in law."

Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18.

More so, taking such a casual approach to the case and not having proper pleadings amounts to contempt of court. Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Sanjiv Dutta, (1995) 3 SCC 619, observed as under:-

"Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from ......... the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings........ and the failure to remove office objections.......... they do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation with court leading to avoidable, unpleasantness and delay in disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system." (Emphasis added).

In thakur Sukhpal Singh Vs. Thakur Kalyan Singh & Anr, AIR 1963 SC 146, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to the court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless lawyer satisfies the Court that there is some balance in his client's favour to alter the situation, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The Court observed as under:-

"........He (counsel) can not just raise objections in his memorandum of appeal and leave it to the appellate court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the appellate court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points."

While deciding the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court placed reliance upon judgment of Privy Council in Mst. Fakrunisa Vs. Moulvi Izarus, AIR 1921 PC 55 and its earlier judgment in Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Lotah, AIR 1955 SC 425.

In T.C. Mathai & Anr. Vs.  District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, (1993) 3 SCC 614, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

"The work in a court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a ......... court is to administer ..........justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues  involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned. ...................In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the court gets proper assistance from both sides."

Similarly, in Bhola singh Vs. The Prescribewd Authority, AIR  1999 Raj 242, it has been observed as under:-

".......... Moreover, the quality of the judgment depends upon the assistance rendered at the Bar. The  Judge can not take the entire responsibility of laying down a correct law unilaterally without any assistance of the learned members of the Bar. The Judge can not afford to retire from Chamber and sit in the library and find out the case law on the issues involved in every case and what is the occasion to do anything in a case where the pleadings are so vague as the petition itself can not be entertained."

Thus, the legal position emerges that a lawyer is dutybound to render proper assistance to the Court and for want of the same, the Court can refuse to proceed with the case.

Thus, as the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to render any assistance, as explained herein above, we find impossible to proceed with the matter and being helpless and, considering that we have no obligation to find out material question of facts and law, it is not warranted to proceed with the matter. Further, as no time was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner to prepare the case further, we have no option but to dismiss the petition, for want of proper assistance by the learned counsel.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

28.7.2003

Sks/AKSI


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.