Above: Calcutta High Court; (inset) Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya

Calcutta High Court stays proceedings in a suit after a trial court refuses to entertain an advocate’s communication of its order

~By Kunal Rao

The Calcutta High Court has stated that unless strongly rebutted, a communication by an advocate about a court order is the equivalent of production of certified copy of the said order. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya made the observation on an application by a petitioner seeking the opportunity to lead evidence under sections 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, which was earlier turned down by trial court.

With this order, advocates are now at liberty to make statements before the court of law on behalf of their clients in a fair manner and that the courts should consider their statements being true as they are officers of the court.

The defendant in an eviction suit had filed the application. Challenging the order refusing leading of evidence, the petitioner filed a revision application and the High Court directed the applicant to appear on a returnable date and granted the petitioner liberty to pray for adjournment before the lower court.

The petitioner prayed for adjournment in the lower court upon production of an advocate’s letter communicating the said order of the High Court. Despite such communication, the trial court took up for hearing the application under relevant sections of the Tenancy Act and disposed off the same by the impugned order.

“Since it is well-settled that communication by an advocate is as good as production of certified copy of the order in question, unless strongly rebutted, prima facie the trial court acted without jurisdiction in disbelieving such communication and disposing off the application in question on merits,” said Justice Bhattacharya.

The High Court further said “Accordingly, the petitioner will serve the copy of this order on the opposite party and/or on the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party in the court below, indicating that the matter will appear on a later date when petitioner will file an affidavit of service.” The court then ordered a stay on all further proceedings in the eviction suit pending before the trial court.

Justice Bhattacharya’s order comes months after the Mumbai High Court, In a landmark judgement held that the printouts  of High Court orders from its official website have sanctity and the trial courts are expected to consider the said orders if they are cited after taking a printout from the official website.

Justice Ravindra Ghuge of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court passed the order in February this year while hearing a civil petition between two brothers. In the said case, the petitioner’s lawyer had expressed concern to the court that often trial judges refuse to consider printout of judgment copies taken from the High Court’s official website and insist on production of certified copy.

Justice Ghuge had termed the apprehension as “misplaced” saying the printout of the order of the High Court from the official website has sanctity and the trial courts are expected to follow the same. “The said orders are also available before the trial court from the official website and there can be a counter verification to find out whether such an order is actually uploaded to the official website or not,” the judge had said. “Once the order is uploaded on the official website, it is a reliable document to be considered by the court before whom it is cited.”