JUDGMENT - WAHANE B.U., J.:---The appellant-Shri Shankarrao Sakharamji Supare in this First Appeal questioned the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, in its judgment and decree dated 19-5-1993 in Application No. 4 of 1992 under section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

2. Before dealing with the submissions and giving my findings, I feel it my bounden duty to note some astonishing and shocking events in this appeal. This first appeal for the first time came on the board for hearing on 14-10-1996. Shri A. P. Deshpande, Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents Nos. 3 and 7, requested to adjourn the matter and at his request, the matter was adjourned to 23-10-1996. On 23-10-1996, again the matter was adjourned to 25-11-1996. On this day, Shri S. V. Manohar made a request on behalf of Shri A.P. Deshpande that Shri Deshpande not being well, the matter be adjourned. Ultimately, the matter was posted on 1-11-1996 and with the consent of Shri Khapre the learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri Lala, the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 and 7, I proceeded with the matter, and it was agreed by the parties that in case Mr. Deshpande is not available on 1-11-1996, he will be heard on 4-11-1996. On 1-11-1996, heard Shri Khapare, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Shri Lala, learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 7 was present in the Court.

Today i.e. on 4-11-1996, it has been brought to my notice by the Reader of the Court that Smt. Neena Khaparde, Advocate has filed the power on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 7, and Mr. A. P. Deshpande has given his 'no objection'. The power of Mrs. Khaparde came to be filed on Saturday the 2nd November 1996. When the matter is called out today, none appeared for the respondents. However, some one for respondents informed the Court that their Counsel is just coming. Waited for considerable time, but none appeared for the Respondents.

Probably, it may be known to the learned Counsel of the parties that Smt. Neena Khaparde is the daughter of the Presiding Officer. Under the circumstances, it was expected from the Advocates already engaged to disclose the relation of Smt. Khaparde with the Judge and could have prevented the clients from resorting to such sharp or unfair practice, in part heard matter. Similarly, the learned Counsel ought not to have accepted the part-heard brief and that too which was before her father. Note No. 6 under Rule 3 framed under the Advocates' Act, 1961 specifically provides that 'An Advocate shall not practice before a Court, Tribunal or authority mentioned in section 30 of the Act, who is related to the Advocate. Father comes in the prohibited list. Both the learned Counsel - the one parting with brief and the other who accepted part heard brief, should have used their best efforts to restrain and prevent their clients from adopting such modus operandi, apparently with mala fide intention with reference to their conduct towards Court. Instead, both the Counsel became easy prey to the designs of their clients. Such conduct is deplorable as it was to influence the decision of a Court or to get adjourn the part-heard matter without any reasonable cause.

Judges have greater faith in themselves and they always do the right thing without feeling exasperation or nervous in any thing. I always remember and practice the words of E.S. Hooper, used in the following couplet;

I slept and dreamt that life was beauty;

I woke and found that life was duty.

In spite of repeated calls, neither Shri A.P. Deshpande, Shri Lala nor Smt. Khaparde, the learned Counsel appeared, thereby it was difficult to fathom the working of their mind, adopting the attitude and conduct discussed in the preceding paras. It is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client, but also to the courts to be punctual in attendance.

Conduct of the advocates appearing for respondents and of those respondents, according to me was unfair and in violation of law. Prob

Click Here to Read the rest of this document