The court emphasized the obligation of advocates to uphold the dignity of the court and ruled that the petitioners' delay without justifiable reason was an abuse of the court process.

1. Challenging the order dated 16.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.505 of 2008 in O.S.No.10 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur, this Civil Revision has been preferred.

2. The petitioners herein had filed an Interlocutory Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1128 days in filing a petition, under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 09.07.2005. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff, in the accompanying affidavit filed in supporting the petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, no reason has been assigned by the petitioners to condone the inordinate delay of more than three years.

3. In the accompanying affidavit filed before the court below, a copy of which available at page No.11 of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the petitioners herein have not stated any acceptable reason to condone the delay of 1128 days. As per the impugned order, the court below has found that the petitioners have not assigned any genuine reason to condone the inordinate delay. However, in the grounds of revision, they have stated that only at the time of E.P. proceedings, the petitioners herein came to know about the ex-parte decree. The court below has passed a detailed order holding that the petitioners had knowledge about the ex-parte decree, however no petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree in time.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also submits that the petition filed by the petitioner before the court below, with a delay of 1128 days, without any justifiable reason is a clear abuse of process of the court. It is seen that the suit relating to the revision, for specific performance was filed in the year 2003 and the same was decreed in the year 2005, the petitioners had knowledge about the suit being filed, having appeared through counsel, failed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness and left the suit for ex-parte decree and subsequently filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1128 days. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no justifiable reason to condone the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the fact that the petitioners had appeared before the court below through a counsel, but subsequently failed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, though the case was adjourned to various dates for cross-examination. Hence, the reason stated in the Revision petition that the petitioners had no knowledge is not true.

5. In Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd., vs. Subhash Kapoor, reported in AIR 2001 SC 207, the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to professional duty of Advocate has held as follows:

"A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the Court, of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay differential respect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the decorum of the court room."

6. In Tahil Ram vs. Ramchand, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1182, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that it is the duty of an Advocate to attend a case both on the clients as well as the court.

7. It has been made clear by various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that an Advocate is a Court Officer. It is his duty to protect the dignity of the Judicial Institution, apart from defending his client legally, in order to succeed in a case and he cannot be carried away by improper and unreasonable instructions of the party to circumvent the law and the procedure and adopt tactics, such as forum shopping on flimsy grounds.

8. It seen that Mr.K.V.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, by his letter, dated 20.04.2010, addressed the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, has stated as follows:

"The above C.R.P is in the list of its Lordship Justice S.Tamilvanan on 21.04.2010. His Lordship has taken view against t