The Allahabad High Court recently deprecated the behaviour of a lawyer who had sent an illness slip seeking adjournment despite being present at the court premises (Ram Nath and Ors v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation District). Allahabad HC Directs To Inform Bar Association About its concerning Members' 'Unfair practice.
Justice Jaspreet Singh remarked that such conduct by advocate Chandra Has Mishra was completely not acceptable. If the counsel was present in the court, he should not have sent an illness slip, the Judge emphasized. The court said that such practice cannot be accepted. If at all the learned counsel for the petitioner was not well, he could himself had stood up and inform the Court rather to have sent an illness slip in the morning and remain in the Court premises throughout the day. Noting the circumstances under which the slip was sent Justice called him before the court and a specific query was put to him as to whether he was appearing in the matter before the court.
The lawyer's presence in Court came to light after an opposing counsel in a matter informed the Judge of the same. The Bench was told that while advocate Mishra had sent an illness slip, he was present outside the Court room.
The Court, in turn, asked the opposing counsel to call advocate Mishra, who later appeared and submitted that although he had come to the Court, he is now having a headache. As such, he had sent an illness slip, Mishra said.
The Court observed that Mishra remained unapologetic and had attempted to justify his act, which the Judge said was no acceptable either.
The court also remarked that thi act of Sri Chndra Has Mishra ( the advocate) is deprecated and not acceptable that once a counsel is present in the court he ought not to have sent an illness strip, as such practice cannot be accepted. The court further added that if at all the counsel for was not well , he could himself had stood up and informed the court rather to have sent an illness alip in the morning and remain in the court premises through out the day.Even the counsel for the respondent had raised an objection to this act of the counsel for the petitioner.
The Court proceeded to adjourn the case, nevertheless. However, the Court also cautioned that no further adjournment will be granted to the parties. The court also said that In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, where the learned counsel for the petitioner is reluctant to argue, for the aforesaid reasons, the matter is being adjourned for 20.08.2021. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties and in case if the petitioner or his counsel has any difficulty, they can make alternate arrangements.
The Court added that a copy of the order may also be forwarded to the Chairman of the Elders Committee of the Oudh Bar Association to inform the Committee "how the members of the Bar are behaving and indulging in such unfair practice."