ORDER :

1. When the case was called, counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he has not prepared the case, therefore, the matter should be adjourned. When this Court refused to adjourn the matter and requested the counsel to argue the matter then again he insisted that once he has not prepared the case, therefore, this Court must adjourn the matter. Counsel was not ready to open his file also. It was not known as to whether the counsel was having the file of this case or not. Accordingly, this Court provided the file of the Court to Shri G. R. Saket but he also did not open the same and stated that he is an Advocate and it is his duty to prepare the case efficiently because he is earning his livelihood for looking after his family including wife and children and once he has not prepared the case then the Court must not hear the matter. The counsel was reminded of duties of an Advocate but again and again he submitted that he is an Advocate and, therefore, he should not be heard unless and until the case is prepared by him. Thus, it is clear that the solitary intention of counsel for the petitioner was to get the matter adjourned.

2. Asking for unnecessary adjournments is neither in the interest of litigant nor in the interest of Institution. This Court in the case of Nandu @ Gandharva Singh vs. Ratiram Yadav and others , order dated 9-1-2019 passed in M.P. No. 1887/2017 has held as under:

“For the lapses on the part of the counsel for respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 1 himself, this Court cannot keep the matter pending unnecessarily and specifically when the counsel for respondent No. 1 is not ready to take the responsibility of delay in decision of the petition, then the counsel for respondent No. 1 has no authority either legally or morally to make prayer for adjournment. The Supreme Court in the case of N.G. Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shinde, (2001) 6 SCC 135 has held as under:

“17. In Black’s Law Dictionary “misconduct” is defined as:

“A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour; its synonyms are misdemeanour, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness.”

18. The expression “professional misconduct” was attempted to be defined by Darling, J. in A Solicitor, ex p, Law Society, in re in the following terms:

“If it is shown that an advocate in the pursuit of his profession has done something with regard to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency, then it is open to say that he is guilty of professional misconduct.”

19. In R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma this Court has quoted the above definition rendered by Darling, J., which was subsequently approved by the Privy Council in George Frier Grahame vs. Attorney-General and then observed thus: (SCC p. 275, Para 19)

“19. Misconduct envisaged in section 35 of the ADVOCATES ACT is not defined. The section uses the expression ‘misconduct, professional or otherwise’. The word ‘misconduct’ is a relative term. It has to be considered with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein such term occurs. It literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct.”

20. An advocate abusing the process of Court is guilty of misconduct. When witnesses are present in the Court for examination the advocate concerned has a duty to see that their examination is conducted