( 1 ) THIS matter is concerned with rights of audience of an advocate in the Court. Such a right being in general is governed in this country by practice as well as by statute. Each High Court is entitled to make rules of its own. It is known that rules are required to be made in the interest of public. It is a matter concerning the dignity and the orderly functioning of the Court. The right of the advocate to practice envelopes a lot of acts to be performed by him in discharge of his professional duties. It is not necessary that the advocate is acting in that capacity in the Court alone. He may advise his client. He may give a written opinion pertaining to a matter or he may draft plaints, written statements or petitions. But all these things are connected with the highly qualified professionals. However, these are the acts to be performed by an advocate outside the Court. But, so far as his practice in the Court is concerned, the court has the supervisory power. Hence, the court cannot be divested with the control or supervision of the Court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the rule is in force indicating that it is not proper for an advocate to accept a brief in a matter where he has acted as a judicial officer. If one accepts the brief, then it is not in accordance with the propriety, modesty, good taste or good manners. To accept a brief in such a situation is not in accordance with the accepted standards of behaviour or the profession.

( 3 ) THIS application is preferred in RFA no. 309/1980 by legal heir of respondent no. 27 urging violation of Rule 15 of Chapter vi-B framed under Section 15 of the Indian bar Council Act, 1926 deemed to have been adopted under the Advocates Act, 1961. It is contended in the application that the appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree made by Mr. P. L. Singla, Additional district Judge, Delhi dated 20-5-1980 in reference proceedings under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1896. The Land acquisition Collector acquired lands vide award No. 2040 covering 720 bighas of land and vide Award No. 2225 covering 3224 bighas 2 biswas out of a joint holding of 4307 bighas 18 biswas of land situated in Village massoodpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, District Delhi.

( 4 ) THERE were three sets of claimants - (1) Gaon Sabha, (2) appellants before the court and (3) transferees being the bhumidhars of the acquired land.

( 5 ) IN this application, the Court is not required to examine the merits of the appeal as the grievance made by the applicant is that one of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who is arguing the matter, should not be allowed to argue this appeal before the Court. We are not referring in this order the name of the advocate, but we refer him as "advocate Mr. A". It is the contention raised by the applicant that the judgment was delivered on 26-8-1965 by Mr. A, who was at the relevant time, Senior Sub judge, Delhi, in respect of the lands under acquisition, dismissing the appeals filed by the Gaon Sabha, Masoodpur against the appellants who had filed suits against Gaon sabha for declaration in the Court of another sub Judge, Delhi for declaration that the order dated 14-7-1958 passed by the revenue Assistant, vesting the land in Gaon sabha under Section 7 of the Delhi Land reforms Act, 1954, was wrong, illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. It is contended in the application that the appellants have based their claim on other judgments delivered by Advocate Mr. A in his capacity as Additional District Judge, Delhi. It is further contended that the appellants and the other non-appearing co-proprietors filed suits against Gaon Sabha, Masoodpur, in the Court of Shri H. C. Gupta, Sub-Judge first Class, Delhi claiming declaration that the land in question was not agricultural land as defined in Section 3 (13) of the Delhi land Reforms Act, 1954 and that the Delhi lan