Papanna & Anr. etc. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.6258-59 Of 1983
WITH
Civil Appeal No.6260 Of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.83 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 1324-25 of 1982)
WITH
Civil Appeal No.6260 Of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.83 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 1324-25 of 1982)
Petitioner: Papanna & Anr. etc.
Respondent: State of Karnataka & Ors. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.6258-59 Of 1983
WITH
Civil Appeal No.6260 Of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.83 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 1324-25 of 1982)
WITH
Civil Appeal No.6260 Of 1983
(From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.83 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No. 1324-25 of 1982)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 01, 1995
Appearances:
Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, Advocate for the Respondents Nos. 1-4.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Counsel – Professional duty – After being designated as Senior Advocate, it is the professional duty of the counsel to intimate the fact to all his clients so that they make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on-record – It is not the duty of the Court to inform the parties.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. After Mr. K.N. Bhat was designated as Senior Advocate, the Registry had issued notices to all the appellants to make alternative arrangements as early as in 1987-88 and the same were served on all the appellants except appellant No.2 who was reported to be dead. None has entered appearance through counsel nor did they appear in person today. As a matter of fact, it is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on\record. It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties. However, it has already been done. In view of the fact that the decree challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) of he Land Acquisition Act being common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant have not been brought on record till date.
2. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. After Mr. K.N. Bhat was designated as Senior Advocate, the Registry had issued notices to all the appellants to make alternative arrangements as early as in 1987-88 and the same were served on all the appellants except appellant No.2 who was reported to be dead. None has entered appearance through counsel nor did they appear in person today. As a matter of fact, it is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on\record. It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties. However, it has already been done. In view of the fact that the decree challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) of he Land Acquisition Act being common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant have not been brought on record till date.
2. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
