Full Text
CS(COMM) 37/2019, IA No.1077/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) &
IA No.1078/2019 (u/O XL R-1 for appointment of a Receiver).
RUNWAY LOGISTICS PRIVATE LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Ms. Mansi Kukreja and Ms. Vidhi Goel, Advs.
0versus PARAS IMPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Randhir Jain, Mr. Dhananjai Jain and Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advs.
13.03.2019 IA No.3631/2019 (of the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC).
JUDGMENT
1. The counsel for the defendants/applicants, instead of arguing the application, has at the outset contended that I should recuse from hearing this suit as well as all other matters in which Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate appears, owing to common order dated 20th February, 2018 in CS(OS) No.385/2010 and Test. Cas. No.26/2010 and a copy of which is handed over. Attention is particularly invited to paras 4 and 16 of the said order.
2. The aforesaid order is taken on record in Part-I file.
3. Para 4 of the said order records that request for passover was made in those proceedings on the ground of non-availability of Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate. In para 16 of the order it was recorded that since Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate had not filed a reply to the application and had not appeared and had sent an Advocate who did not know anything about the case, the application was allowed and for the reasons stated in the other paragraphs of CS(COMM) 37/2019 2019:DHC:1527 that order, Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate was also restrained from appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 or any other party in that suit.
4. I have enquired from Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate, whether he was a party in person or had any other interest other than professional in CS(OS) No.385/2010 and Test. Cas. No.26/2010 or is a party in person or has any interest other than professional in the present suit.
5. He replies in the negative.
6. I have next enquired from Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate, whether any appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20th February, 2018 supra, by him personally or by any other party thereto.
7. The answer is again in the negative.
8. I may also mention, that no review of the order dated 20th February, 2018 was sought.
9. The aforesaid are indicative of none including Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate having been aggrieved from order dated 20th February, 2019.
10. Advocates and Judges act professionally in the Courts and what may transpire in one of the proceedings with which they are dealing, is of no consequence or relevance in any other proceedings in which the same advocate appears or comes up before the Judge. The cases are to be argued and decided on the basis of facts and merits thereof and de hors the identity of the Judges and lawyers. The call for recusal suffers from this basic fallacy.
11. Thus, the request for recusal is rejected.
12. Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate then states that hearing of the application may be taken up day after tomorrow, to enable him to seek instructions from his client, whether they want him to continue to represent them in this case or want to engage another Advocate.
13. List on 15th March, 2019.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MARCH 13, 2019 ‘pp’..