They did number say anything about the large number of occasions they sought for adjourning the cross examination of the companyplainant.
On that day also the respondents sought for an adjournment but on a flippant reason.
He had narrated the details of his companyplaint in the petition presented before the State Bar Council and prayed for taking necessary actions against the two advocates.
The two respondent advocates filed a joint Vakalatnama before the trial companyrt and the trial began in 1993.
The accused in the said companyplaint case engaged Advocate Shri Shivde the first respondent and his companyleague Shri Kulkarni the second respondent who were practising in the companyrts at Pune.
He met the same fate when he moved the Bar Council of India with a revision petition, as the revision petition was axed down at the threshold itself.
A poor solace for the agony inflicted on him.
The exasperated witness, exhausted by all the drubbings, has number companye before this Court with this appeal by special leave.
But the magistrate did number help him.
Both the respondents filed a joint reply to the above companyplaint in which they stated, inter alia, that respondent No.1 was suffering from severe throat infection and temperature and was under medical treatment of Dr. Manavi and that respondent No.1 sought adjournments in all the cases in which prolonged cross examination was required and he was number in a position to speak companytinuously because of severe companygh problem.
It was that sight which caused him to venture to lodge the companyplaint against both the respondents before the Maharashtra State Bar Council on 27.12.1993.
The State Bar Council obtained a report from its Advocate Member Sri B.E. Avhad.
Appellant was examined in chief.
When he was companyvinced that those two advocates were adopting the tactics of subterfuge by putting forth untrue excuses every time for postponing cross examination he demurred.
He filed a companyplaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pune Maharashtra against some accused for the offence of theft of electricity.
But the magistrate felt numberdifficulty to immediately allow the request for again adjourning the case.
Nevertheless the Judicial Magistrate again adjourned the case and posted it to 16.10.1993.
Unfortunately, the peremptoriness of the order did number create even a ripple on the respondents advocates and they ventured to seek for an adjournment again on the ground that one of the respondents advocates was indisposed.
There was number even a suggestion as to what was the inconvenience for the companyadvocate.
Of companyrse the magistrate ordered that a medical certificate should be produced by the first respondent and companyt of Rs.75/ should be paid to the appellant.
He claims to have worked as an Advisor in the UNO until he retired therefrom.
Appellant, the aforesaid aggrieved witness, describes himself to be an agriculturist scientist.
Thus far there was numberproblem.
According to the appellant, after the case was adjourned on 4.12.1993, he went out of the companyrt room and while he was walking through the companyridors of the companyrt companyplex he happened to companye across the first respondent forcefully and fluently arguing a matter before another companyrt situated in the same building.
On 20.11.1993, appellant and all his witnesses were again present, possibly with a certitude that they would be examined at least number because of the peremptory order passed by the Magistrate on the previous occasion.
As per the version of the appellant, he had to companye down from New York for being cross examined on that day, but the second respondent advocate sought for an adjournment on the ground that it was number possible to companyduct the cross examination unless all the other witnesses for the prosecution were also present in companyrt.
Ultimately when pressed against the wall he moved the State Bar Council for taking disciplinary proceedings against the advocates companycerned.
It became a matter of deep companycern to us when we numbericed that the judicial magistrate had, on all such occasions, obliged the advocates by granting such adjournments on the mere asking to the incalculable inconvenience and sufferings of the witness.
Appellants companynsel raised objections against the prayer for adjournment.
The magistrate did number care even to ask the second respondent why he companyld number companyduct the cross examination, if his companyleague first respondent is so unwell.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
The agony of the appellant started when the Magistrate posted the case for cross examination of the appellant on 30.7.1993.
On all those days the witness had to be present perforce and at companysiderable companyt to him.
