Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suhas Jayant Natawadkar

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A No. 2 of 2009. x IN SLP (Civil) No. 18481 of 2009. VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARY v. SUHAS JAYANT NATAWADKAR From the Judgment & Order dated 13.1.2009 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Contempts Petition No. 212 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 4842 of 2005. Vikas Mahajan, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra for the Petitioner. J The following Order of the Court was delivered

1I.A. No. 2 of 2009 in an application for restoration of the special leave, petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.07.2009. This application discloses a disturbing trend in c regard to the functioning of Advocates-on-record.

2The special leave petition is stated to have been drafted by Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate and filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, Advocate-on-Record. The application for restoration is filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, alleging that the case was listed for hearing on 20.07.2009 that he (Mr. D.B. Vohra, Advocate-on- Record for the petitioner) was aware of the listing of the petition, that he informed the clerk of Mr. Vikas Mahajan about the listing that Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate by mistake did not enter this case in his diary and therefore, Mr. Vikas Mahajan did not appear. There is no affidavit of Mr. Vikas Mahajan in support of the application.

3What is puzzling is the role or rather the absence of the role of the Advocate-on-Record in this matter. Para 4 of the application shows that the Advocate-on-Record had nothing to do with the special leave petition except to lend his name for filing the petition. He did not take instructions from the clienV petitioner. He did not prepare the special leave petition. He did not instruct any counsel. He was not required to or expected to 3. attend the hearing of the case.

4The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provide that though any advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, is entitled to appear and plead before the Court, no advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to file an A appearance or act for a party in the Court [vide Rule 1, Rule 4 6(b) and Order IV]. Rule 5 provides that no advocate shall be qualified to be registered as advocate-on-record unless he has undergone training for one year with an Advocate-on-Record approved by the court and thereafter has passed the tests held B by the court. Rule 6(a) provides that an Advocate-on-Record shall, on his filing memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party, accompanied by Vakalatnama duly executed by the party, be entitled to act as well as to plead for the party in the matter and to conduct and prosecute before the court all proceedings c that may be taken in respect of the said matter or any application connected with the same or any decree or order passed therein including proceedings in taxation and applications for review. Sub-clause (c) of Rule 6 requires all Advocates-on-Record to keep such books of account as may D be necessary to show in connection with his practice as an advocate-on-record, moneys received from or on account of I and the money paid to or on account of each of his client.

5Unfortunately, many special leave petitions are being filed with Advocates-on-Record being mere name-lenders, E without having, or taking, any responsibility for the case. As a result of prevalence of such a practice, in such cases, the Advocates-on-record do not appear when the matters are listed either before the Registrars or before the Chamber Judge or the Court nor do they take any interest or responsibility for F processing or conducting the case. They also play no role in preparation of the special leave petitions, nor ensure that the requirements of the Rules are fulfilled and defects are cured. If the role of an advocate-on-record is merely to lend his name for filing cases without being responsible for the conduct of the G case, the very purpose of having the system of Advocates-on Record would get defeated.

6The question that arises for consideration is whether an Advocate-on-Record can file appearances as mere namelender for facilitating filing of petitions by others, without VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARY v. SUHAS JAYANT NATAWADKAR performing any of the functions associated with an Advocateon-Record.

7In order to enforce discipline in the working of advocates-on-record and to avoid the misuse of the system, and to ensure that the court has the benefit of effective assistance of the Advocates-on-record, a solution has to be found.

8We, therefore, direct issue of notice to the Advocateson-record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to assist us to find appropriate solutions and provides necessary checks and balances. The Registry is directed to furnish copies of this order to the said Associations.

9List the matter on 30.11.2009. R.P. Matter Adjourned.