Advocates Aren’t Client’s Agents: Bombay High Court Directs State Bar Council To Do Enquiry On Advocate Seeking Adjournment To Delay Passing Of Order
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application with a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs, challenging the Orders arising out of the obstructionist proceedings.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct an enquiry in the conduct of an Advocate who sought adjournment to delay the passing of the Order.
The Court was deciding a Civil Revision Application against the Orders arising out of the obstructionist proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed, “In view of the above conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate it is required to be noted that the Advocates are the Officers of the Court and their first duty is to the Court. Advocates are not the agents of their client.”
The Bench said that such conduct of the Advocate is totally unacceptable and prima facie is a misconduct.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Thorat, AOR Pratibha Shelke, Advocates Vijay Kurle, and Bhagyesha Kurane appeared for the Applicant while APP R.S. Tendulkar and Advocate Anand A. Pande appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Applicant-Obstructionist was the son of the Defendant No. 3 i.e., the Judgment Debtor. Both the Courts recorded the concurrent findings that the Applicant has produced manipulated and fabricated documents. Therefore, after hearing both the parties, the High Court expressed that apart from dismissal of Civil Revision Application with exemplary cost, drastic Orders are required to be passed. Hence, Senior Advocate took time to take instructions of withdrawal of the Civil Revisional Application.
Accordingly, on April 4, time was granted for taking instructions regarding withdrawal of the same and the case was adjourned to April 8. On the said date, AOR Pratibha appeared for the Applicant and informed the Court that the Applicant has given instructions not to withdraw the Application and therefore requested to pass the Order. Resultantly, the case was adjourned to April 9 (i.e., date of Judgment).
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… when the matter is called out today, initially Ms. Bhagyesha Kurane, learned Advocate appeared and informed that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has instructions to file vakalatnama and Applicant has obtained NOC from Ms. Pratibha Shelke, learned Advocate on record and request was made to adjourn the matter as Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate will be arguing the matter.”
The Court further took note of the fact that at that time, the Court informed Advocate Bhagyesha Kurane that the matter is already completely heard and the same is kept for passing Order and therefore there is no question of adjourning the matter.
“At that stage Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate appeared and he made the same request that the matter be adjourned as in the meanwhile he will file vakalatnama and thereafter he will argue the matter. It is made very clear to Mr. Vija Kurle, learned Advocate that the submissions of both the parties were heard on 4th April 2025 and the Civil Revision Application is kept today for passing order and therefore there is no question of adjouring the matter”, it added.
The Court said that it is shocking to note that even after the Court informed Advocate Vijay Kurle that the Civil Revision Application is kept for passing Order, he repeated his request to adjourn the matter.
“Thus, the said conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate clearly shows that he is completely aware that the matter is kept today for passing order and to ensure that the order is not passed today and the proceedings are delayed Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has appeared and made the said request”, it remarked.
Furthermore, the Court emphasised that an Advocate shall act at all times in a manner befitting his status as an Officer of the Court and shall conduct himself with dignity and self-respect.
“An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client”, it also observed.
The Court was of the view that Advocate Kurle acted as an agent or mouthpiece of the Applicant and not as the Officer of the Court.
“The conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate clearly shows that instead of restraining and preventing the Applicant from resorting to sharp and unfair practices, Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has acted as agent of the Applicant. Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate instead of acting as an Officer of the Court actively participated with the Applicant in resorting to sharp and unfair practice by appearing in the matter which has been completely heard and kept for passing order”, it said.
The Court remarked that although it is informed to Advocate Kurle that the matter is kept for passing Order, still to delay the same, he sought adjournment for filing Vakalatnama and for arguing the matter.
“The said conduct clearly shows that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has resorted to sharp and unfair practice with complete knowledge that the matter is completely heard and kept for passing order. Prima facie I am satisfied that Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate has committed misconduct”, it held.
Moreover, the Court noted that the Suit has been decreed after a period of about 20 years and thereafter, the Obstructionist proceedings have been filed in the year 2017 by the Applicant who is the son of the Defendant No.3.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs.
Cause Title- Ballam Trifla Singh v. Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:16738)
