Matter of concern that noble profession of law reduced by some lawyers to a mere trade or worse: Madras High Court

The improper invocation of writ jurisdiction in a matter recently prompted the Madras High Court to lament that the noble profession of law has now been reduced to a mere trade or even worse by some practitioners (S Pichai and anr v. The District Registrar and ors)..A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice S Ananthi expressed concern that audacious and utterly frivolous claims are now reaching the Court without any degree of care or caution being exercised at the Bar to weed out completely unworthy matters. .In this regard, the Court commented that the "filter that was traditionally maintained at the Bar may no longer be in place."."It is a matter of concern that the noble profession that it was once called may now have been reduced by some practitioners to a mere trade or even worse. Oftentimes, instead of appropriate advice being given to a client, devices are chalked out to aid the client that may even border on abetting. These are areas of concern that need to be addressed by the disciplining authority, provided such authority was disciplined itself," the Court observed..The case that prompted the Court's ire concerned a writ appeal, which the Bench remarked was possibly an attempt to avoid the liability to a secured creditor or a bank. .The appellants have obtained an agricultural loan in respect of which they eventually received a notice from the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai for the recovery of an amount in excess of Rs 19 lakhs with interest. .A one-time settlement offer was later made by the bank, which the appellants paid to discharge the loan. Thereafter, however, the appellants complained that some documents were fraudulently registered and moved a writ petition to declare certain title deeds as null and void. The prayer was dismissed by the writ court, prompting the appellants to move an appeal before the Division Bench. .The Division Bench of Chief Justice Banerjee and Justice Ananthi noted that the writ court had found the submissions in the affidavit “completely jumbled up and disjoined” and that the matter went beyond comprehension in how it had been presented. The Court further noticed that a bald case of fraud had been made out to challenge the ownership of properties by others, before dismissing the plea. .Agreeing with the decision to dismiss the case, the Division Bench pointed out that the appellants ought to have approached a civil court if they wanted to challenge the title rights of other persons. ."It is elementary that questions of title are not gone into in the writ jurisdiction, which is primarily a remedy available in the public law field. In any event, issues as to fraud and forgery cannot be decided on affidavit evidence in summary proceedings and writ petitions are, generally, decided in such manner and without recording any evidence ... More importantly, a challenge of such kind has to be carried to a civil court upon payment of due court fees for the reliefs claimed. The writ petition was nothing more than a kite-flying exercise to put another person’s title in cloud to obtain an undue advantage," the Court said. .The Division Bench proceeded to dismiss the writ appeal while imposing costs of Rs 20,000 on the appellants, to be paid to the respondents impleaded in the matter in equal measure. .On a parting note, the Court added, "It may also be time for advocate for the appellants to introspect.".[Read Order]