SATYENDRA NARAIN SINGH & OTHERS. versus RAM NATH SINGH & OTHERS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 23-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
, 
• 
609 
SATYENDRA NARAIN SINGH & OTHERS. 
v. 
RAM NATH SINGH & OTHERS. 
August 23, 1984 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.J 
Standards of professional conduct and etiquette-Duty of the C.?urt owed !Jy 
the Advocate-Propriety of accepting a brief and appearing before his father-
Rule 6 of Section I of ChaPter II of Rules 1nade by the Bar Council of India 
under Section 49(1) (C) of the Advocates Act, 196/, explained. 
The appellants and respondents are members of an association called the 
State Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Bihar. Respondent 
No. 1 filed a suit in the Court of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Patna in the 
capacity of a life member of the Society and obtained an injunction restraining 
the appellants and respondent No. 3 from interfering with the working of the 
Society. Having lost the appeal against the order of interim injunction before 
the Additional District Judge VI, Patna, the appellants filed a revision appli· 
cation before the High Court of Patna. On July 3, 1980, when the revision 
application came up for hearing before Mr. Justice S.K. Jha, Shri Bindeswari 
Chaudhury, Advocate appearing for the appellants took an adjournment for 
July 9, 1980. 
On Juty 8, 1980 the appellants changed their advocate and 
engaged Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha another advocate and son of Mr. Justice 
S K. Jha to appear for them. The learned Judge was surrrised to find that the 
appearance of his son was filed in a case of which he was already seized. 
How. 
ever, on July 9, 1980, instead of Sailendra Kumer Jha appearing for the appel-
lants, Shri Bindeswari Chaudhury appeared and did not press the revision appJi. 
cation saying that he would rather return the papers to his clients. The learned 
Judge dismissed the application since it was not pressed. Hence the appeal 
after obtaining Special Leave of the Court by the appellants. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Since it is not quite clear whether the appeilants made an 
untrue representation to Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha that the case was not ready 
for hearing and that it had not even appeared in the monthly c·ause list, the 
appellants and their advocate cannot be condemned unheard. Audi a/teram 
partem. [611F-G] 
A 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
. 2. There are a few black sheep in every profession, nay, in every walk 
of IJf<h 
B\l~ few a.s they are, they tqrriish! by their machinations, the fair name 
ff 
A 
B 
61) 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] I s.c.R. · 
of age.old institutions. Therefore, persons who occupy high public offices 1nust 
take care to see that thos~ who claim to be close to them are not allowed to 
exploit that closeness, alleged or real. On the facts of this case, it can only be 
said that Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha took a correct decision in not appearing in 
that case any further and, with respect, his father jurtice S.K. Jha acted in the 
best traditions of the Judiciary in seeing that his son withdrew from the case. 
It is better that in such circumstances the Advocate son, rather than the Judge 
father, withdraws from the case. [611G-H, 6J2A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 3373 OF 1984 
C 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the 9th July, 1980 of the Patna High Court in C.R. No. 1655/77 
D.N. Mukherjee and N.R. Choudhary for the Appellants 
B.P. Singh for the Respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRA CRUD, C.J. Special Leave granted limited to the 
question of the propriety af briefing a son to appear before his 
father. 
In Bihar, there is an Association called the State Society for 
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 
As if other forums do not 
provide enough opportunities for factious fights, there was an un-
seemly wrangle amongst the members of the Society over its day-to-
day management. So much indeed, that inspired by the lofty ideal 
of preventing cruelty to animals, they forgot that they did not have 
to be unkind to their own brotherhood. 
Their petty disputes led to 
the filing of a suit in the Court of the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, 
Patna. That suit was instituted by respondent 1, who claims to be 
a life member of the Society. 
He filed an application in the suit 
for an injunction restraining the appellants and respondent 3 from 
interfering with the working of the Society. That application was 
allowed by the trial Court. The appeal filed against the order of 
interim injunction was dismissed by the le

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