Advocates Are The Officers Of The Court First And The Mouthpieces Of Their Respective Clients After

• Advocates Are The Officers Of The Court First And The Mouthpieces Of Their Respective Clients After
• admin
• 02 May, 2024

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that advocates are the officers of the Court first and the mouthpieces of their respective clients after that.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court stated that advocates are first and foremost Court officers, and then they are mouthpieces for their clients.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court's order, which allowed the first and second respondents to construct a compound wall under police protection.

In this case, arbitration petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The first respondent filed a petition against Urvaksh Naval Hoyvoy and others, and Taz Naval Nariman and another individual filed another. The first respondent filed the petition with consent terms.During the proceedings, Urvaksh Naval Hoyvoy was arrested.

Later, the 7th respondent filed an interim application, alleging that local residents obstructed the construction of a compound wall in accordance with the consent terms. The court dismissed this application in 2021. An application was then filed to survey the disputed lands, but some individuals, including the appellants in this case, objected.

The first and second respondents filed Writ Petition No. 2584 of 2022, citing noncompliance with survey and wall construction orders. The affected parties were not named in the petition. The Division Bench ordered government officials to appear and issued an order.

Police reported that local tribals demanded land demarcation prior to construction, which was agreed upon. However, the affected parties were not implicated, and the Writ Petition was disposed of by a cryptic order. A review petition was dismissed, and the court suggested raising grievances in the appropriate forum if any illegality was committed.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed based on the “Minutes of Order” is completely illegal and vitiated by the non-joinder of necessary parties.

Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of “Minutes of Order” referred to the case of Speed Ways Picture Pvt. Ltd. and . and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. where it was stated that “as a courtesy to the Court, the practice of long standing is to put statements such as these in writing in the form of “minutes of order” which are tendered and on the basis of which the Court passes the order: “Order in terms of minutes”. The signatures of counsel upon “minutes of order” are intended for identification so as to make the order binding upon the parties’ counsel represented. An order in terms of minutes is an order in invitum, not a consent order. It is appealable and may be reviewed.”

The bench observed that because the order passed in terms of the "Minutes of Order" is an order in invitum, when a document titled "Minutes of Order" signed by the advocates for the parties is tendered on record, the Court must first determine whether it is lawful to pass an order in terms of the "Minutes of Order." The Court must determine whether all necessary parties have been impleaded in the proceedings in which the "Minutes of Order" were filed. The Court must consider whether the order sought in accordance with the "Minutes of Order" will affect third parties.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated that if the Court believes that the necessary parties were not impleaded, the Court ought to allow the petitioner to implead them. On the failure of the petitioner to implead them, the Court must decline to pass an order of disposing of the petition in terms of the “Minutes of Order”. The reason is that an order of the Court passed without hearing the necessary parties would be illegal.

The bench stated that the advocates who sign and tender the “Minutes of Order” have greater responsibility. Before they sign the “Minutes of the order”, the advocates have an important duty to perform as officers of the Court to consider whether the order they were proposing will be lawful. They cannot mechanically sign the same. After all, they are the officers of the Court first and the mouthpieces of their respective clients after that.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was the Court's responsibility to have directed the first and second respondents to implead those who were likely to be affected. The first and second respondents could not have claimed ignorance of the names of the relevant parties because they referred to the owners of the other lands in the "Minutes of Order". However, the High Court's Division Bench has made no inquiry into whether the construction of the compound wall under police protection will have any effect on third parties. As a result, the order dated March 16, 2022, issued in the Writ Petition pursuant to the "Minutes of Order" is completely illegal and must be set aside.

In view of the above, the bench partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 16th March 2022 and the order dated 20^th July 2023 and restore Writ Petition No. 2584 of 2022 to the file of the High Court.

Case Title: Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. v. Meher K. Patel & Ors.

Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4786 OF 2024.

To get free legal advice: click here

For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here