Orissa High Court
CMP/380/2020 on 31 August, 2020
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
CMP No.380 of 2020
03. 31.08.2020 This matter is taken up through Video
Conferencing.
In recent past this Court has some horrible
experience while conducting Court through Video
Conferencing. First one is when a counsel after finishing
his case brought his wife inside the Video Conferencing
site and even after frequent request since position did
not improve, Court form its own side had to disconnect
the petitioner's connection. Second instance is, a
counsel argued his matter from garden. On query
learned counsel said he could not get proper contact
from inside his house, which proved to be wrong when
learned counsel shifted the system to inside his house
and inside his house, he was requested not to repeat in
future. This Court has also observed some counsel while
appearing through Video Conferencing went on eating
and despite repeated requests, he did not drop himself.
Considering the serious interruption in the court
proceeding, today again a counsel attempted to argue
his case from inside a moving Car and he explained that
since he is to attend a case at Puri, he is rushing to Puri
and is unable to argue his case from his residence at
Cuttack. This Court seriously condemns the conducting
of a case inside a vehicle on road. In the Covid-19
situation extending arguing place beyond the Court
premises does not mean permitting one to argue matter
inside a vehicle, from his lawn and from his drawing
uks
2
room allowing his wife to join him in the process of
proceeding. Counsel should argue at the minimum from
his/her home or temporary residence and there should
be maintenance of minimum decorum. Copy of this
Order be served on interim committee of Bar Council as
well as Bar Association for necessary instruction to
learned Bar Members and advise them not to breach the
decorum as well as decency in Court proceedings.
Coming back to the case at hand, heard the
submissions of Mr.P.C. Jena, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.S.N. Mishra, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
This is an application against rejection of an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure
Code being rejected by the trial court on serious contest
by the plaintiff.
Considering the submission of Sri Jena,
taking into account the grounds raised herein and
looking to the plaint at Annexure-4, this Court finds,
sometime the present petitioner represented the plaintiff
when the plaintiff remains personally unable in
conducting the case. This Court again finds the
petitioner sought to be added as party by way of Order
1 Rule 10 C.P.C., but he has already been represented
the plaintiff and now attempting to add himself as co-
defendant. There is also scope for making a person
representing the plaintiff sometimes in the same suit to
be added as defendant. Besides, there is also no relief
3
sought for in the suit against this petitioner and plaintiff
has a serious contest on the request of the petitioner.
Perused the grounds of rejection of the
application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by the
trial court. This Court is in full agreement with the
reasons assigned by the trial court and thus finds no
scope for interference in the same in exercise of power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
accordingly the C.M.P stands dismissed.
As lockdown period is continuing for Covid-
19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the
soft copy of this order available in the High Court's
website or print out thereof at par with certified copies
in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587,
dated 25.03.2020.
.....................................
Biswanath Rath, J.
4 5