NIRANKAR NATH WAHI AND OTHERS versus FIFTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 07-06-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
NIRANKAR NATH WAHI AND OTHERS 
v. 
FIFTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, 
MORADABAD AND ORS. 
Jwie 7, 1984 
[A.P. SEN AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Order 17 and Order 20-Adjournment,..-Request 
for further adjournment to engage Senior Counsel refused-District. Judge keeping 
judgment ready and pronouncing judgment dismissing appeal-Procedure whether 
just, fair and reasonable. 
Practice and Procedure : Adjourment-Request for by appellant to engage 
Senior Counsel~Refused of-District Judge keeping judgtnent ready and deiivering 
judgment-Whether there is denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing-
Whether procedure adopted by District Judge in preparation Of!.d pronounce~ 
ment of judgment vitiated. 
The appellant in the appeal was the landlord. He sought an adjourn-
ment of the hearing of his appeal that was pending before the Additional District 
Judge on the ground of indisposition of his senior . counsel. The respondent 
tenant was a leading member of the local bar. The Additional District Judge 
refused the prayer, but granted three days' time for making alternative arrange-
ments and directed 
that 
the appeal be posted for 
hearing of further 
arguments and that on fail';lre to urge arguments, the judgment would be 
pronounced. On the adjourned date, the appellant again sought adjourn-
ment on the ground that he could not secure the services of his out!.station 
senior counsel and that his counsel wolfld not be able to appear fo.r at least a 
month and that he ffiay be granted further time to engage· another senior counsel. 
The Additional District Judge refused the adjourment on the ground that more 
than sufficient time had been garnted for additional arguments, and added : 
"The judgment is ready which is delivered". 
The appeal was dismissed by 
pronouncing the judgment which had been kept 'ready for being delivered'. 
A writ petition to the High Court by the 
a~pellant uJllier Art. !27 
was rejected in limine. 
· 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behelf of the appellant 
that: (!) as the respondent was-a leading and influential member of the local bar, 
members of the local bar were not willing to appear- in41fp.e matter .and that the 
appellant was genuinely handicapped in securing the services of an out-station 
senior counsel and (2) that even though the appeal was fixed for making 
further oral submissions on the adjourned date, the Additional District Judge 
kept the judgment r~ady and pronounced it w"'~n the appellant appeared and 
requested for further time to engage a senior counsel. 
· 
· 
.. '' 
' 
: 
' 
' 
' 
\ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1984] 3 S.C.R. 
Al1owing the appeal, 
HELD: The judgn1ent rendered by the District Judge is vitiated by 
reason of the failure to grant reasona_ble opportunity of hearing to· the appel-
lant and by reason of the procedure adopted in connection with the preparation 
and pronounce1ncnt of the judgment. The High Court also erred in rejecting 
the 'vrit petition sumn1arily. The judg1ncnt and order passed by the High 
Court as well as those passed by the Additional District Judge are set aside and 
the matter remitted to the Court of the District Judge for being disposed of, 
after affording a reasonable opport~nity of hearing tu both the parties. 
(924-G-925 B] 
In the eyes of Jiiigant a senior member of the bar when shed perso-
naliy, n1ight enjoy certain amount of syn1pathy with the members of the 
judiciary before ·whom he is practising day in and day out. This aspect can-
not be overlooked having regard to the realities of life. 
[922 D} 
The learned Judge should have shown awareness of this dimension of the 
matter and bearing in 1nind the adage that ijustice must also arpear to have been 
done', ought to have dealt with the request for a short adjournment with 
a degree of understanding. [922 E] 
It is common knowledge that when a leading men1ber of the Bar is sued • 
or sues in a personal capacity, the members of the Bar \vhere he is practising 
are more than reluctant to accept a brief against the colleague and friend on 
account of personal relations Of' on account of likelihood -of embarrassment. 
In a matter like this, the litigant pitted against a leading member of the Bar, 
inay also want to engage a cou_isel of his choice and confidence for it n1ay well 
appear tO hin1 that not every member of the Bar might present his case with 
the degree of zeal, enthusiasn1 sincerity and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.