The
Supreme Court has said that fairness is a "hallmark of great
advocacy" and if the members of the Bar do not cooperate with the trial
courts, it would be very difficult for the courts to deal with huge arrears of
cases.
The
apex court made the observations while hearing a petition arising out of an
order of the Bombay High Court. It noted that as per data available on the
National Judicial Data Grid, there is a huge pendency of suits in the trial
courts in Maharashtra.
"If
the members of the Bar do not cooperate with the trial courts, it will be very
difficult for our courts to deal with the huge arrears," a bench of
Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal said in its verdict delivered on
September 14.
The
top court said while a trial is being conducted, the members of the Bar are
expected to act as officers of the court and conduct themselves in a reasonable
and fair manner.
"The
members of the Bar must remember that fairness is a hallmark of great advocacy.
If the advocates start objecting to every question asked in the
cross-examination, the trial cannot go on smoothly. The trial gets
delayed," it said.
The
observations by the top court came after it noted that as per the trial court's
recording in the matter, one of the advocates had taken objections on every
question during the cross-examination of a witness.
The
bench delivered its judgement on an appeal challenging the June 2021 order of
the high court which had stayed the execution and operation of a judgement and
decree passed by a district court on a suit filed by a firm engaged in selling
country liquor.
Claiming
that it has a copyright of the artistic label displayed on the bottles of the
country liquor sold by it, the firm had claimed permanent injunction
restraining another company from infringing copyright in its artistic label.
In
its suit, the firm had also prayed for a decree of injunction restraining the
other side from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or
otherwise dealing in country liquor having its trademark label or any
deceptively similar trademark label.
The
apex court noted the district court had restrained anyone from manufacturing,
selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in country liquor
bearing the trademark or any other trademark label deceptively similar to the
plaintiff's trademark label.
The
other company had moved the high court which stayed the execution and operation
of the decree till the final disposal of the appeal.
The
apex court, which dismissed the plea observing that the high court was
justified in granting order of stay pending final disposal of the appeal, noted
it cannot refrain from recording "certain disturbing features" about
the conduct of a member of the Bar while the trial was being conducted in the
case.
It
referred to the trial court's recording during the cross-examination of a
witness by one of the firms.
The
bench noted the trial judge had recorded that the lawyer was taking objections
for each and every question.
"In
the facts of the case, looking at the persistent objections raised by the advocate,
the court was required to record a substantial part of the cross-examination in
question and answer form which consumed a lot of time of the court," the
top court said.
While
dismissing the plea, the bench clarified that while deciding the pending appeal,
the high court would not be influenced by the observations made by the apex
court.