Skip to content


N. Subramanyam Vs. K. Ummar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ733
AppellantN. Subramanyam
RespondentK. Ummar and anr.
Excerpt:
.....for security employment, the tribunal and the single judge have shown undue sympathy and generosity to the workman in interfering with the punishment imposed by the management, which in the facts and circumstances of the case was not justified. order of dismissal restored. .....it is clear that the respondent's learned advocate wanted to suppress the factum of the taluk surveyor's services in the suit locality on 18.9.1971 which could be made out from the following order dated 25.10.1971.mr. n.s. represents that he couldn't get taluk surveyor's assistance, but that positively he could take the commissioner 15.11.so evidently on 25.10.1971, the fact that the taluk surveyor did visit the suit locality on 18.9.1971 was deliberately suppressed and this line was taken during the arguments also. however, during the arguments respondent's counsel wanted to suppress this visit of the taluk surveyor in toto. i do not think that this kind of recklessness in making representation in the court is becoming to a lawyer who is after all engaged by a party to help.....
Judgment:
ORDER

E.S. Venkataramiah, J.

1. This is a petition presented by Sri N. Subramanyam who is an Advocate practising at Puttur. He has prayed that the following portion in the order Passed by the Principal Munsiff. Puttur, on I.A. No. IV in O.S. No. 255 of 1971. may be expunged:

Moreover it is clear that the respondent's learned Advocate wanted to suppress the factum of the Taluk Surveyor's services in the suit locality on 18.9.1971 which could be made out from the following order dated 25.10.1971.

Mr. N.S. represents that he couldn't get Taluk Surveyor's assistance, but that positively he could take the Commissioner 15.11.

So evidently on 25.10.1971, the fact that the Taluk Surveyor did visit the suit locality on 18.9.1971 was deliberately suppressed and this line was taken during the arguments also. However, during the arguments respondent's counsel wanted to suppress this visit of the Taluk Surveyor in toto. I do not think that this kind of recklessness in making representation in the Court is becoming to a lawyer who is after all engaged by a party to help the court in finding out the truth.

2. On going through the order passed by the court below. I am of the opinion that the case could have been disposed of by the Court without adverting to the conduct of the counsel. The relevant material on the basis of which the court below passed the above order was available in the file. If the court below felt that certain material was not placed before the Court by the counsel concerned, it should have drawn the attention of the counsel to the said fact and asked his explanation about it. Omission on the part of a counsel to mention a certain fact before the court may not always be attributable to the deliberate intention of the counsel to suppress the said fact from the knowledge of the court. Sometimes. by oversight the counsel arguing before court may not be able to bring to the notice of the court some aspects of the case. Very often such omission may be on account of a bona fide mistake. In those circumstances, the courts should be slow before making remarks against the conduct of the counsel in the course of the order unless it is absolutely necessary to do so while administering justice. Even when the court finds that there is some mistake deliberate or otherwise committed, it is the duty of the court to draw the attention of the counsel to such mistake before making remarks in the course of the orders which would reflect upon the conduct of the counsel. Presiding Officers of courts should always remember that when temper rises, judgment flies through the window. I do not find any justification for the learned Munsiff passing the remarks extracted above in the course of the order. The portion of the order extracted above is directed to be expunged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //