Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 882 (MAD)

A. Venkatesh v. A. Ahmed Ali

2014-04-09

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2014
ORDER 1. Any action has to reach a finality. The way in which the proceedings were initiated and are being prolonged at the instance of one party forever is a classical example how the process of law can be abused or misused. 2. The present case has a long checked history right from 1993. Even after two decades, it has not seen the light of the day. It has created many proceedings, seen many forums and many Judges. A person who entered into the premises as a tenant remains in the possession of the property without paying the rent. 3. The petitioner who appears in person was inducted as a tenant in respect of the house and ground bearing New No. 9, Old No. 7, ‘A’ Block, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106 by one Mr. J. Mariadoss who was the owner of the property at that time for a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed RCOP No. 2595 of 1993 under Section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act for depositing of Rs. 500/- as monthly rent into the court. The said petition was allowed on 18.08.1993. Based on the said order, the petitioner is said to have deposited the amount upoto 30.09.1999, i.e. till he allegedly entered into a sale agreement with one Dr. Ahmed Ali and thereafter for three months. 4. On 30.03.1995, Mr. J. Mariadoss, through his power agent L. Joseph sold the said property to Dr. Ahmed Ali, the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner who remained as a tenant is said to have entered into an agreement of sale with Dr. Ahmed Ali for a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs and time limit given was three months. A sum of Rs. 2 lakhs is said to have been paid by the petitioner to Dr. Ahmed Ali and subsequently in the year 1999, another sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. 5. Alleging default in the payment of rent for three years, Dr. Ahmed Ali, subsequent purchaser and the 1st respondent herein filed RCOP No. 2045 of 2002 under Section 10(2) (i) of the Rent Control Act. Ahmed Ali and subsequently in the year 1999, another sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. 5. Alleging default in the payment of rent for three years, Dr. Ahmed Ali, subsequent purchaser and the 1st respondent herein filed RCOP No. 2045 of 2002 under Section 10(2) (i) of the Rent Control Act. The said petition was contested by the petitioner and by order dated 13.11.2003, the learned Rent Controller held that there is landlord – tenant relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and directed the petitioner to pay arrears of rent for 49 months, for the period 01.10.1999 to 31.10.2003, on or before 27.11.2003, in default of which eviction would be ordered. Even though, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there was a default while exercising his discretion, gave time to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent and accordingly, the petitioner also paid the said amount without prejudice to the petitioner’s right. 6. Aggrieved over the order passed in the aforesaid RCOP, the petitioner filed RCA No. 161 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai on 09.02.2004. The said RCA was withdrawn on 18.08.2009 by making an endorsement by the petitioner himself. Based on the said endorsement, the Appellate court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on 18.08.2009. The said withdrawal is sought to be set aside by the petitioner by filing a petition in 2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 347 days in filing application to re-open RCA No. 161 of 20014 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.08.2009. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 24.11.2012. Against the said order only, the present CRP No. 1359 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner. 7. Meanwhile, much water has flown under the bridge and so many proceedings before various forums at various levels have been initiated. The petitioner, based on the alleged agreement of sale dated 23.09.1998 filed O.S. No. 4700 of 2004 on the file of the II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the 1st respondent for specific performance of the agreement. Before that, the first respondent already initiated RCOP No. 560 of 2004 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition premises on 26.03.2004. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the 1st respondent for specific performance of the agreement. Before that, the first respondent already initiated RCOP No. 560 of 2004 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition premises on 26.03.2004. On contest, the suit was dismissed on 13.11.2006 observing that the alleged agreement of sale is forged and fabricated and however, directed the 1st respondent to return a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest to the petitioner with proportionate cost. Hence, the petitioner filed A.S. No. 1115 of 2007 against the dismissal of specific performance suit and the 1st respondent preferred A.S. No. 1030 of 2007 against the granting of money decree. 8. Be that it may, the fair rent petition filed in RCOP No. 560/2004 by the 1st respondent against the petitioner was disposed of on 03.03.2005 fixing the fair rent at Rs. 19,596/- per month. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing RCA No. 559 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on 12.10.2009 confirming the fair rent fixed by the trial court. 9. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent sold the property to one Mr. M. Mohammed Diwan, Mr. Peer Mohammed and Mr. Ibrahim Sha, the respondents 2 to 4 herein, on 18.02.2008. They also filed impleading petition in RCA No. 161 of 2004 and RCA No. 559 of 2005 which were pending at that time and the said impleading petitions were allowed by the Appellate Court on 28.01.2009. Thereafter only, RCA No. 161 of 2004 was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner on 18.08.2009 and RCA No. 559 of 2005 was dismissed on merits on 12.10.2009. In RCA No. 559 of 2005, the petitioner filed M.P. No. 672 of 2008 for filing additional documents. Both the appeal as well as MPs were dismissed and against which the petitioner preferred two CRPs, namely 4095 of 2010 and 2563 of 2012. 10. A.S. No. 1030 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent, A.S. No. 1115 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and the two CRPs 4095 of 2010 & 2563 of 2012 filed by the petitioner against the fair rent were heard altogether by this Court. 10. A.S. No. 1030 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent, A.S. No. 1115 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and the two CRPs 4095 of 2010 & 2563 of 2012 filed by the petitioner against the fair rent were heard altogether by this Court. After hearing the parties, this Court on 04.01.2013 dismissed A.S. No. 1115 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and allowed A.S. No. 1030 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent and dismissed CRP Nos.4095 of 2010 & 2563 of 2012 filed by the petitioner. 11. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner preferred three SLPs before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The SLPs against the appeal suit judgment were numbered as SLP (Civil) 18458 & 18459 of 2013 and they were dismissed on 08.05.2013 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. As far as the SLPs against CRP No. 4095 of 2010 and 2563 of 2012, the petitioner states that the said SLPs are pending numbering before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 12. Meanwhile, the respondents 2 to 4 filed RCOP No. 630 of 2009 against the petitioner on the ground of owner’s occupation and denial of title on 21.03.2009 and the said RCOP was contested by the petitioner. RCOP No. 630 of 2009 was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.08.2012. The petitioner preferred RCA No. 641 of 2012 on 18.10.2012. The said RCA is stated to have been dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.09.2013 and it is submitted that a petition in M.P. No. 818 of 2013 to restore the RCA is pending. 13. The above facts are given in detail only for the completion of the facts. Now, there are two CRPs viz. CRP No. 1371 and 1359 of 2014, one is filed by the respondents 2 to 4 in CRP No. 1371 of 2014 seeking early disposal of M.P. No. 818/14 in RCA No. 641 of 2012. As stated above, the other CRP No. 1359 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner against dismissal of the petition field under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 347 days in filing the petition to re-open RCA No. 161 of 2004 which was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn on 18.08.2009. 14. Mr. A. Venkatesh, who is appearing as party-in-person is assisted by Ms. 14. Mr. A. Venkatesh, who is appearing as party-in-person is assisted by Ms. V. Preeti, his daughter who is stated to be doing her M.Phil in Economics who also argued the matter for some time. Though they argued together, this court advised them to engage a counsel for which they said that they were already cheated by some of the advocates and therefore they are arguing the matter in person. This court encountered certain problems while the arguments were heard as the parties exhibited only emotions rather than proper points. In any event, this court does not find fault with them considering their position. 15. The crux of the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner already entered into an agreement of sale with Dr. Ahmed Ali, the 1st respondent herein on 23.09.1998 for a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakhs to purchase the suit property and a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid on that day and subsequently, in the year 1990, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid through demand draft. After entering into an agreement of sale, the landlord – tenant relationship came to an end and the occupation of the property is, as an agreement holder and therefore he is not bound to pay any rent to anybody. Moreover, the petitioner very strenuously submitted that knowing the fact that there is an agreement of sale between the petitioner and the 1st respondents, the respondents 2 to 4 purchased the property by undervaluing the same. The petitioner further alleged that influence was exercised by the father of the respondents 2 to 4 herein as they happened to be the children of a District Judge. In this regard, he would point out that he gave many complaints against the said Judicial Officer and enquiries were also conducted. It is pointed out from the evidence in the rent control proceedings and in the specific performance proceedings, to state that there was no landlord – tenant relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and others and there is no necessity for payment of rent. 16. The petitioner specifically points out that he engaged a counsel to conduct RCA No. 161 of 2004 who gave a written opinion advising him to withdraw the said appeal. Accordingly, he withdrew it. Subsequently, he came to know that he was misled and wrongly he withdrew the appeal. 16. The petitioner specifically points out that he engaged a counsel to conduct RCA No. 161 of 2004 who gave a written opinion advising him to withdraw the said appeal. Accordingly, he withdrew it. Subsequently, he came to know that he was misled and wrongly he withdrew the appeal. Therefore, the present petition namely M.P. No. 698 of 2010 to condone the delay in filing a petition to re-open RCA No. 161 of 2004 was filed by him and that was erroneously dismissed by the Appellate Court. If an opportunity is given to him, he would put forth his case and get orders on merits. The petitioner, at the risk of repetition reiterated that there is no landlord – tenant relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent/owner and the respondents 2 to 4 herein. 17. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner is interested only to squat upon the property by initiating so many proceedings and see that they do not end. He would submit that all the proceedings the petitioner initiated ended against him and it reached finality before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even after the finality, the very same contention is being made by the petitioner before various forum. Particularly, he pointed out that whenever the matters are argued before various forums, there was no problem when the petitioner was represented by an Advocate. After the petitioner started appearing in person, many allegations are being made against almost all the Judicial Officers including the Judges of this court and therefore the matter went from one court to another and so far seen six Judges and finally the Appeal suit and the connected CRPs were finally heard and disposed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Palanivelu. Even in respect of RCOPs and RCAs, allegations used to be thrown at the judicial officers at the instance of the petitioner and in proof of the same, the respondent counsel referred to the complaints incorporated in the typed set filed by him in Page Nos. 1, 90 to 93, affidavit of the petitioner filed in Page No. 100 and memo filed by the petitioner in Page Nos. 110 to 115. 18. Mr. 1, 90 to 93, affidavit of the petitioner filed in Page No. 100 and memo filed by the petitioner in Page Nos. 110 to 115. 18. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan would further submit that the contention of the petitioner that there is no landlord – tenant relationship with any of the respondents is not sustainable in view of the categorical finding given in RCOP No. 2045 of 2002 dated 13.11.2003 and against which though RCA No. 161 of 2004 was filed and the same was allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend the same. He would further submit that RCA No. 641 of 2012 was dismissed for default and M.P. No. 878 of 2013 is pending before the lower appellate court and therefore he want a direction to the lower Appellate Court for early disposal of the said M.P. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sathu Dharmananda Saraswathi Swamigal Trust v. Sree Shanmuga Seva Sangam Nattar Trust 2014 (1) TNLJ 212 (Civil) and would submit that making allegations against the judicial officers have to be condemned, as done in the said judgment. 19. In reply, the petitioner would submit that allegations alleged to have been made by him against the judicial officers are unfounded. The Hon’ble Judges of this Court themselves refused to hear the case as they were colleagues at one point of time with the father of the respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner never made any allegations against the Hon’ble Judges of this Court. The 1st respondent misled the Rent Control Appellate Authority and sought early disposal of the appeal whereas at the time of filing of the petition, the 1st respondent was not a senior citizen and the petition filed by the 1st respondent inspite of the petitioner’s objection was allowed. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that at every point, there was some influence over the learned Judicial Officers. Non-marking of certain documents filed by the petitioner in RCA No. 161 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Officer is also pointed out by the petitioner. Therefore, he would seek an opportunity to get orders on merits in the appeal. 20. Heard the parties and perused the records. 21. Non-marking of certain documents filed by the petitioner in RCA No. 161 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Officer is also pointed out by the petitioner. Therefore, he would seek an opportunity to get orders on merits in the appeal. 20. Heard the parties and perused the records. 21. It is very disheartening that even though the original proceedings started in the year 1993, the dispute reached the Apex Court proceedings have not attained finality in real sense. As far as RCOP No. 2595 of 1993 initiated by the petitioner is concerned, it was allowed on 18.08.1993 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount into the court which is the only proceeding which came to an end and reached finality and thereafter all the proceedings are continuing. 22. As far as the allegations regarding specific performance are concerned, the petitioner would contend that he entered into an agreement of sale on 23.09.1998 and a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was paid to the 1st respondent herein and that after entering into the agreement, he had not paid the rent, were all rejected by the courts already. The petitioner relied upon the alleged agreement of sale dated 23.09.1998 and filed O.S. No. 4700 of 2004 for specific performance which was dismissed on 13.11.2006 and the petitioner was given alternate prayer for recovery of advance money. The matter was carried over to this court by way of A.S. No. 1030 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent herein and A.S. No. 1115 of 2007 filed by the petitioner. A.S. No. 1115 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and A.S. No. 1030 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent was allowed by a common judgment passed on 04.01.2013 by this court. Against the said common judgment, two SLPs namely SLP No. 18458 & 18459 of 2013 were preferred by the petitioner and the same were dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 08.05.2013. Though the petitioner would submit that certain procedures and irregularities were experienced while hearing the appeal suit, it is not for this court, at this juncture, to consider the contention as the issued already attained finality by dismissal of SLP against the said judgment. Therefore, the contention by the petitioner that still he has got remedy before this court by filing review petition is only hypothetical. As on date, the review petition has not been filed. Therefore, the contention by the petitioner that still he has got remedy before this court by filing review petition is only hypothetical. As on date, the review petition has not been filed. Secondly, the contention of the petitioner regarding specific performance of the agreement was already negatived and attained finality. With regard to the landlord and tenant relationship is concerned, the petitioner himself admitted that Mr. J. Mariadoss was the owner and he only inducted him as tenant for 500 sq.ft. Since there was a dispute with regard to the payment of rent, the petitioner filed RCOP No. 2595 of 1993 under Section 8 (5) of the Act and got order to deposit amount on 18.08.1993. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was inducted only as a tenant. Unless his position gets changed by virtue of the sale deed executed by the owners or by virtue of decree passed by the competent court, his position continues only as a tenant and not otherwise. 23. The said J. Mariadoss, who was the original owner, sold the property to Dr. Ahmed Ali, the first respondent herein on 30.03.1995 with whom the petitioner is alleged to have entered into an agreement of sale on 23.09.1998. As stated above, the sale agreement dated 23.09.1998 was rejected by the trial court as well as by this court and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. The 1st respondent who is the subsequent purchaser from Mr. J. Mariadoss filed RCOP No. 2045 of 2002 alleging that the petitioner committed wilful default for three years. Though the petitioner denied landlord – tenant relationship, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion by order dated 13.11.2013 that there is landlord – tenant relationship and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent for 49 months, i.e. from 01.10.1999 to 31.10.2003, on or before 27.11.2003, in default of which eviction would be ordered. The petitioner is said to have paid the amount without prejudice to his rights. Though the petitioner would contend referring to certain portions of the evidence adduced before the learned Rent Controller that there was no landlord – tenant relationship due to passing of the final order in the RCOP, the said contention at this stage is not sustainable. 25. RCA No. 161 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner against the order passed in RCOP No. 2045 of 2002. 25. RCA No. 161 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner against the order passed in RCOP No. 2045 of 2002. The said appeal alone was withdrawn by the petitioner, on legal advice, on 18.08.2009. Only to re-open the said RCA, M.P. No. 698 of 2010 was filed alongwith condone delay of 347 days. Though the petitioner would contend that the learned counsel mislead the petitioner and therefore he withdrew the appeal, the said contention was rejected by the learned rent control Appellate Authority observing that the petitioner is trying to re-open the RCA with an intention to drag on the litigation with the respondent. The Appellate Authority also took note of the fact with the allegations made by the petitioner against the advocates and judicial officers. The learned counsel for the respondent produced the certified copy of the endorsement made by the petitioner himself on 18.08.2009 which reads as follows- “permitted to withdraw as not pressed” Based on the above endorsement only, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn. Even if any endorsement or any representation is made by the counsel, on behalf of the party, the said representation is in binding on the party which is a well settled law whereas in this case, the petitioner himself withdrew the appeal, as evident from the endorsement. Based on wrong advise if the petitioner withdrew the appeal, the course open to him is not against the respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with. 26. This court cannot brush aside or ignore the allegations made by the petitioner against the Judicial Officers, as evident from paragraph 6 of the complaint filed by the petitioner in February 2013 before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court and paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in M.P. No. 818 of 2013 in RCA No. 641 of 2012 and paragraph 2 of the order passed in Transfer OP No. 6 of 2014 dated 14.02.2014 and especially paragraph 5 of the memo filed by the petitioner before the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The said paragraph 5 is extracted as follows - From the above, it is very clear that the petitioner has been making allegations against the Judicial Officers. Though it is stated that the petitioner made allegations against the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was pointed out by Mr. The said paragraph 5 is extracted as follows - From the above, it is very clear that the petitioner has been making allegations against the Judicial Officers. Though it is stated that the petitioner made allegations against the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was pointed out by Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan that the very same counsel, at the instance of the petitioner had been making allegations against the Judicial Officers. The facts narrated above only prove that, nowadays, some of the advocates are identifying with the clients instead of conducting the case as per law. Advocates are officers of the court and they are bound to conduct a number of cases in a day and it is not expected that an advocate to personally get attached to any particular case. If any such personal attachment is made, instead of advancing arguments, emotions alone will be surfacing and no one can expect legal submission from the said counsel. Time and again, Apex Court as well as this Court have been laying emphasis in the importance of good conduct by the Advocate inside and outside the court and integrity, professional ethics, standards while discharging professional duty. Apex Court inR.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 : (2009) 5 MLJ 1377 Para 331 to 336 observed as follows- “331. The other important issue thrown up by this case and that causes us both grave concern and dismay is the decline of ethical and professional standards among lawyers. The conduct of the two appellants (one convicted of committing criminal contempt of court and the other found guilty of misconduct as Special Public Prosecutor), both of them lawyers of long standing, and designated Senior Advocates, should not be seen in isolation. The bitter truth is that the facts of the case are manifestation of the general erosion of the professional values among lawyers at all levels. We find today lawyers indulging in practices that would have appalled their predecessors in the profession barely two or three decades ago. Leaving aside the many kinds of unethical practices indulged in by a section of lawyers we find that even some highly successful lawyers seem to live by their own rules of conduct. 332. We find today lawyers indulging in practices that would have appalled their predecessors in the profession barely two or three decades ago. Leaving aside the many kinds of unethical practices indulged in by a section of lawyers we find that even some highly successful lawyers seem to live by their own rules of conduct. 332. We have viewed with disbelief Senior Advocates freely taking part in TV debates or giving interviews to a TV reporter/anchor of the show on issues that are directly the subject-matter of cases pending before the court and in which they are appearing for one of the sides or taking up the brief of one of the sides soon after the TV show. Such conduct reminds us of the fictional barrister, Rumpole, “the Old Hack of Bailey”, who self-deprecatingly described himself as an “old taxi plying for hire”. He at least was not bereft of professional values. When a young and enthusiastic journalist invited him to a drink of Dom Perignon, vastly superior and far more expensive than his usual “plonk”, “Château Fleet Street”, he joined him with alacrity but when in the course of the drink the journalist offered him a large sum of money for giving him a story on the case; “why he was defending the most hated woman in England”, Rumpole ended the meeting simply saying “In the circumstance I think it is best if I pay for the Dom Perignon.” 333. We express our concern on the falling professional norms among the lawyers with considerable pain because we strongly feel that unless the trend is immediately arrested and reversed, it will have very deleterious consequences for the administration of justice in the country. No judicial system in a democratic society can work satisfactorily unless it is supported by a Bar that enjoys the unqualified trust and confidence of the people, that shares the aspirations, hopes and the ideals of the people and whose members are monetarily accessible and affordable to the people. 334. We are glad to note that Mr Gopal Subramanium, the amicus fully shared our concern and realised the gravity of the issue. In course of his submissions he eloquently addressed us on the elevated position enjoyed by a lawyer in our system of justice and the responsibilities cast upon him in consequence. 334. We are glad to note that Mr Gopal Subramanium, the amicus fully shared our concern and realised the gravity of the issue. In course of his submissions he eloquently addressed us on the elevated position enjoyed by a lawyer in our system of justice and the responsibilities cast upon him in consequence. His written submissions begin with this issue and he quotes extensively from the address of Shri M.C. Setalvad at the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of the Bangalore Bar Association, 1961, and from the decisions of this Court in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P. (observations of RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.) and Sanjiv Datta, In Re(observations of SAWANT, J. at pp. 634-35, para 20). We respectfully endorse the views and sentiments expressed by Mr M.C. SETALVAD, PANDIAN, J. and SAWANT, J. 335. Here we must also observe that the Bar Council of India and the Bar Councils of the different States cannot escape their responsibility in this regard. Indeed the Bar Council(s) have very positively taken up a number of important issues concerning the administration of justice in the country. It has consistently fought to safeguard the interests of lawyers and it has done a lot of good work for their welfare. But on the issue of maintaining high professional standards and enforcing discipline among lawyers its performance hardly matches its achievements in other areas. It has not shown much concern even to see that lawyers should observe the statutory norms prescribed by the Council itself. We hope and trust that the Council will at least now sit up and pay proper attention to the restoration of the high professional standards among lawyers worthy of their position in the judicial system and in the society. 336. This takes us to the last leg of this matter.” In O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana AIR 2011 SC 2101 : (2011) 6 SCC 86 , the Apex Court insisted that an advocate should be dignified in his dealings with court, his fellow lawyers and to litigants. In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of UP AIR 2011 SC 2275 : (2011) 7 SCC 776 : (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 419 held that dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them should be curbed with heavy hands and relevant para 18 is extracted as follows - “18. In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of UP AIR 2011 SC 2275 : (2011) 7 SCC 776 : (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 419 held that dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them should be curbed with heavy hands and relevant para 18 is extracted as follows - “18. The dangerous trend of making false allegations against judicial officers and humiliating them requires to be curbed with heavy hands, otherwise the judicial system itself would collapse. The Bench and the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations on trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none. “Liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary.” A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client maligning the reputation of judicial officers merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalise the court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, would cause a very serious damage to the institution of judiciary. An advocate in a profession should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of the society and justice system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable.” As already stated, this court find no merits in CRP No. 1359 of 2014 filed by the petitioner and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 27. As far as CRP No. 1371 of 2014 filed by the respondents 2 to 4 is concerned, it is for a direction to the learned Appellate Authority to dispose of M.P. No. 818 of 2013 in RCA No. 641 of 2012. Since the matter is pending from 2012 onwards, it is appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the matter at the earliest, on or before 30.06.2014. 28. It is evident that originally the petitioner was represented by counsel and thereafter, not satisfied with the performance of the advocate, the petitioner himself started appearing before the courts. Since the matter is pending from 2012 onwards, it is appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the matter at the earliest, on or before 30.06.2014. 28. It is evident that originally the petitioner was represented by counsel and thereafter, not satisfied with the performance of the advocate, the petitioner himself started appearing before the courts. The situation is the sorry state of affairs of the legal fraternity which needs to have introspective necessarily. The party is not in a position to understand the niceties of the law and the procedures. He is after all a litigant. He is concerned only with his case and he is emotionally attached to the case and therefore whenever the party appears, emotion alone is expressed rather than the law. When he is unable to get favourable order, the tendency is to make allegations against the officers and the advocates. This court cannot find fault with the state of mind of the litigant. In our country, even if the proceedings reached finality, the adversary tendency does not vanish and the other side always remain as adversary which is not good, in the interest of society. One such party is the petitioner. Though for making allegations against the Judicial Officers, heavy cost has to be slapped on the petitioner, taking note of the fact that the petitioner himself is arguing the matter without assistance of an advocate and he is emotionally attached to his case and fighting the case from 1998 onwards, this court is not taking any serious view and let off with a warning to the petitioner not to indulge in such a manner in future. 29. In the result, CRP No. 1359 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs. CRP No. 1371 of 2014 is allowed directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of M.P. No. 818 of 2013 in RCA No. 641 of 2012 at the earliest, on or before 30.06.2014. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Petition dismissed. Petition allowed.