Full Judgment Text
$~22 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 751/2019 & CM APPL. 23028/2019
USHA MANN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Adv.
versus
RAJIV VAID & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
% 18.05.2022
There are three respondents in this matter. Respondents 2 and 3
1.
have apparently been impleaded because they were parties in CS No.
95533/2016 ( Rajiv Vaid v. H. P. Vaid & Ors. ). They have actually
nothing to do with the controversy in issue.
rd
2. The impugned order dated 3
November, 2018, passed by the
learned Civil Judge, reads thus:
“CS No. 95533/16
Rajiv Vaid Vs. H.P. Vaid &Ors.
03.11.2018
Present:- Sh. K.S. Pathania, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff in person.
Ms. Usha Maan, defendant no. 2 in person.
Sh. Rajiv Vaid, PW-1 in person.
Matter is fixed for cross-examination of PWl for today.
PW-l has been cross-examined by defendant no. 2 and after
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 751/2019 Page 1 of 3
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:23.05.2022
16:46:29
conclusion of cross- examination of PW-1, PW-1 is
discharged. The counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that
PW- 2 was examined in chief on 02.03.2016 and he is to be
cross examined on behalf of the defendants.
At this stage, this court deems fit to note down that
defendant no. 2 is a lawyer by profession and she was
conducting her case by herself on the last date of hearing it
was already noted that cross-examination of PW-1 took
several dates and the court is constrained to observe that
irrelevant questions were asked by defendant no. 2 to PW-1.
Since defendant no. 2 who is a counsel and the party in the
present case, this court advise defendant no. 2 not to
personally conduct the present case since her personal interest
is involved in the present case. Accordingly, defendant no. 2
is advised to engage a counsel on the next date of hearing
otherwise she will not be allowed to conduct the further
proceedings by herself .
Cost of Rs. 1000/- stands paid by the plaintiff to the
defendant in terms of order dated 04.08.2018.
Now put up for cross-examination of PW-2 on
28.02.2019.”
(Emphasis supplied)
To my mind, such an order is completely untenable in law and
3.
borders on perversity.
4. The court, especially when functioning under the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot deny any party, in any
proceeding, the right to represent her or his cause herself or himself.
5. The learned Civil Judge, by directing that, in case the petitioner
would not engage a counsel, she would not be permitted to conduct
the further proceedings by herself, has clearly transgressed the
legitimate bounds of his authority.
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 751/2019 Page 2 of 3
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:23.05.2022
16:46:29
6. The petitioner is a counsel. She is Defendant 2 in the
proceedings before the learned Civil Judge. If she desires to conduct
her proceedings herself, the court has no right to stop her from doing
so. In case the court finds that the manner in which she is conducting
the proceedings is objectionable, the actions which legitimately may
be taken by the court lie elsewhere. The court is not empowered to
pass an order saying that if she does not engage a counsel, she would
not be permitted to represent her case.
7. The impugned order is completely unsustainable in law. It is
accordingly quashed and set aside.
The petition is allowed.
8.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MAY 18, 2022
dsn
Signature Not Verified
CM(M) 751/2019 Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:23.05.2022
16:46:29