MUMBAI, SEPT 1: The Bombay High Court recently pulled up an advocate, M K Jain for ``failing to perform his duties dispassionately'', ``towards the cause of justice'' but since he apologised unconditionally, Justice S S Nijjar did not recommend any further action against him.The matter related to a notice of motion filed by Krishnadevi M Kanodia and others who had sought to set aside an ex parte decree in a suit filed by her daughter-in-law, Asha Rameshkumar Kanodia. The decree, passed by the Bombay High Court in 1997, directed that the in-laws of Kanodia, a widow, would have to pay money towards maintenance and return her streedhan. The suit was filed by Kanodia and her four children - three minor daughters and a minor son - for the administration of the estate of her husband, Rameshkumar Kanodia.Kanodia, who alleged that her husband was in fact murdered, claimed that she had been abused and thrown out of her matrimonial home at Andheri in 1989 and was living with her father and brother.Thenotice of motion was moved by the defendents on the ground that they were not heard because of a mix-up caused by a change in advocate. The vakalatnama of the new advocate, M K Jain, was filed on a suit wrongly shown as suit no 806 of 1992 while it should have been no 608. Since the vakalatnama was not on record and name of the advocate was not shown on board, the ex parte decree was passed.However, Justice Nijjar concluded on August 13 that the affidavit was a ``gross misrepresentation'' of the facts since Jain had not filed the vakalatnama for the suit at the right time. He also rejected the submissions of advocate S K Jain (who was arguing the case) that the writ of summons were received after 5.30 pm, which is beyond the limit. However, Justice Nijjar held that it was common knowledge that the offices of advocates are nowadays open not just after 5.30 pm, but also on Saturdays and Sundays. The ``technical defences raised by S K Jain cannot be permitted to override the interest of justice,'' the orderreads.Commenting that the ``paramount duty of the advocate is not to the client, but to the court,'' Justice Nijjar held that the advocate for the defendents, M K Jain not only ``tried to mislead the court, but also kept the defendents in the dark''.``He has also made unwarranted allegations against advocate (for the plaintiffs) S P Bharati, the letters which are said to have been delivered to him, were in fact never delivered. Bharati has categorically stated that the endorsement on the two letters dated November 4, 1996 were not his. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra for investigation. But at this stage, S K Jain tenders an unconditional apology on behalf of M K Jain, ..and it would not be necessary to proceed any further in the matter'' Justice Nijjar observed in his order.The notice of motion was then dismissed. An application for a stay on the operative part of the order, was also rejected.
