An advocate's duty is not only to the client but also to the court, and their primary role is to assist the court in arriving at the correct decision. Frivolous allegations and attempts to tarnish the image of the judiciary should not be permitted.

JUDGMENT :

Re: CAN 2456 of 2019

1. It is a brazen attempt on the part of the applicant to intervene in the midst of the judicial proceeding having no nexus to the cause of action or the points involved therein.

2. If our memory goes down the lane, the day, when this matter was taken up first for hearing, Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, learned Advocate, appeared and submits that he is appearing for an intervenor. On being asked for whom he is appearing, he submitted that he is appearing for an Advocate, who has been victimized by the act of the learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents before this Court. This Court did not allow him to waste the Court's time without any application having been taken out in this regard.

3. The matter did not end there. The applicant before us took out an application seeking addition as a party in the proceeding with further prayer that the appeal should be adjourned sine die pending the investigation.

4. We reminded ourselves to the proposition of law concerning the addition of party in a judicial proceeding. Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to add a party to the proceeding provided he is necessary or proper party. The necessary party is one without whose presence the lis cannot be continued and/or the issues therein cannot be decided. On the other hand, the proper party is one whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. The learned Advocate, who was engaged by the claimants/respondents at an earlier point of time, can never be treated as a necessary and/or proper party.

5. It is informed to this Court that when the earlier Division Bench was in seisin of the instant appeal, the applicant intervened therein as well and it was his stand that the claimants/respondents never executed Vakalatnama in favour of the Advocate-on-Record of the claimants/respondents, who is now appearing for them. The Division Bench called the claimant No. 1 to appear before the Court. This Court is further informed, which is not disputed by either of the parties, that the said claimant, in fact, appeared in person before the Division Bench and categorically asserted that she engaged the present Advocate-on-Record to conduct the case for her and on behalf of other claimants.

6. The whole episode is founded on the share in the claim amount awarded or to be awarded by this Court. An Advocate is an honourable person and is a part of a noble profession. Even though he represents the litigant before the court and takes care of his interest or defends his interest yet his primary duty is to assist and help the court to arrive at the correct decision. Precisely for such reason he is considered to be an officer of the court and remained a part of the noble profession.

7. If a person like the applicant, who claims himself to be an Advocate, intervenes in the judicial proceeding on the basis of frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations simply because he at one point of time aspire to get a chunk of the claim amount, which appears to be rampant in such category of cases, the posterity would curse the judiciary, if the Judges remain the mute spectators.

8. The entire statements made in the application are pointer to one issue that the present Advocate-on-Record of the claimants/respondents could not and cannot act for such claimants, when such claimants had no grievance against him, as he sufficiently took care of their interest and, in fact, the orders were passed in their favour.

9. The litigant is neither a commodity nor chattel. It is improbable and beyond perceivable concept that he would remain with the Advocate and cannot take "No Objection" by engaging another Advocate nor the law requires that a litigant has to assign the reason to the Advocate-on-Record as to why he or she wanted a change from him with an intent to engage another Advocate. If it is a matter of non-payment of fees, the same should have been taken up in another forum but certainly does not