Some Judges and Lawyers Whom I Knew By DR. KAILAS NATH ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the two learned Judges were taking, different views in the case before them. The difference graduallybecame so acute that they practically ceased to be on speaking terms with each other and they begantalking to each other through the counsel before them. One of them would put a question to the counseland the other Judge would intervene by saying "I suppose your answer would be this." The argumentswere concluded and the Chief Justice being the senior Judge dictated his judgment. He dictated it on hisown behalf and gave expression to his own views and findings and concluded by saying that "I would,therefore, allow the appeal" and so on. He was then followed by Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji who in hisjudgment again in the first person singular dealt with the arguments advanced by the Chief Justice andcountered them by his own views. We all thought that the two Judges were differing completely from eachother and the case would have to go before a third Judge for final decision. We were also noticing that SirHenry Richards had become absolutely quiet and was listening to Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji with hiseyes closed. Suddenly, everybody was immensely taken aback when Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerjibegan saying "but inasmuch as the learned Chief Justice had taken a contrary view I am not prepared todiffer and I would also, therefore, allow the appeal" and so on. The whole Court was filled withexcitement. Sir Henry Richards woke up. His face was glowing and jubilant and he rose in his seat andturning towards Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji solemnly bowed to him, his face wreathed in smiles. TheCourt atmosphere was suddenly changed. It was indeed an extraordinary glorious scene. This is a story Ithink of 1915 or 1916.I had myself a rather curious incident with Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji. He was sitting with Chief JusticeSir Grimwood Mears and I was appearing for the appellant in an appeal before him. It was rather adifficult case. Some property was in dispute and many creditors-decree-holders of a particular judgmentdebtorwere trying to get hold of that property on the allegation that it belonged to their judgment-debtorand was, therefore, liable to attachment and sale in execution of their decree. Their claim was resisted byanother individual who claimed to be the owner of the property in his own right wholly unconnected withthe judgment-debtor. This question of ownership had previously been raised in a claim launched by aparticular judgment-creditor but that suit had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court ofwhich Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji was also a member. The question was raised again in another suitsubsequently instituted by another judgment-creditor. Parties being different no question of res judicatacould be raised but naturally the lower courts had felt themselves almost bound by the previous HighCourt judgment and they had dismissed the suit. It was an appeal in that case which I was then arguingbefore this Division Bench consisting of Sir Grimwood Mears and Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji. I openedthe case and briefly stated the points in my favour. Both the Judges were greatly' impressed and clearlyexpressed their views in my favour. Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji then in tones of surprise and curiosityasked as to why the lower courts had decided the case against me. It seemed to him almostincomprehensible. I quietly said, "My Lord, the learned District Judge has been somewhat impressed by aHigh Court judgment. " Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji asked, "Who were the Judges in that judgment? "and I quietly said, "Your Lordship was one but the judgment was not delivered by your Lordship. The thenChief Justice had delivered the judgment. " Thereupon, my learned friend appearing for the opposite sideenquired, "How does my friend know that? " and I answered, "His Lordship (Justice Bannerji) is always inthe habit of using the phrase as pointed out above' in his judgments but that phrase does not occur in thejudgment now under discussion." Everybody, of course, smiled at this inference of mine. Sir PramodaCharan Bannerji then asked for the ruling and after some time began to read it. He had committed himselfso deeply with his remarks in my favour during the course of argument that he was obviouslyembarrassed by the previous judgment. Sir Grimwood Mears was in my favour but he was thoroughlyenjoying and relishing the scene. Soon I noticed he directed the Court Reader to send for some papers.The papers came and he looked at them and then suddenly he burst forth, "I now realize what has led toall this mistake. Here is my brother's note book of the time when this earlier case was heard. There arejust four lines of notes recorded by Justice Bannerji about this case. It is obvious that the case was neverfully argued before the Bench at that time. Facts were not properly stated nor full circumstances broughtout and that led to the delivery of a wrong judgment in that case. How can we be bound by a decision likethat? " Sir Pramoda Charan Bannerji was obviously relieved and pleased. The argument continued andultimately the appeal was allowed.In my practice in the High Court from 1914 to 1937 I had the privilege and good fortune of appearingbefore many Judges in the High Court. they were all able, competent, learned and extremely anxious toadminister complete impartial justice between the parties. Among them all Sir Henry Richards, the ChiefJustice, who retired in 1917, was undoubtedly an outstanding personality. He was extremely quick-witted,intelligent and of a forceful penetrating intellect. He would soon come to the point and would love todispose of the case as quickly as possible. He was a dominant personality anxious always to encouragedeserving young men appearing before. him but he would tolerate no misbehaviour of any kind. Oneincident stands out in my recollection. He was sitting singly and hearing second appeals for admissionunder order 41, rule II, C. P. C. In one appeal one of the pleas in the memorandum of appeal was that aparticular finding of the learned District Judge was not supported by any evidence on the record. SirHenry Richards read the judgment and said, "In the judgment it was stated that that particular finding wasbased upon the evidence of a particular witness."Counsel-"That is not so. The witness had said nothing on the point. "C. J. -"Have you read the statement?"Counsel-"Yes, My Lord. "C. J. -"Have you got a copy of. it ? Please read it. "Counsel began to fumble with the deposition of the witness.C. J. -"Pass it on to me. "
Counsel passed the statement on to the Bench. The Chief Justice read it. Unfortunately, it appeared thatthere was a line in that statement dealing with the matter before the District Judge. The Chief Justicebecame furious. I shall never forget the sight of his face which was red with anger and he burst forthwith,"Appeal dismissed with costs, " and added, "I shall never believe in future a word of what you say". It wassuch a passionate denunciation and the remark was uttered with such vehemence that Counsel probablythought his continuance in Allahabad was now an absolutely hopeless proposition and he left Allahabadfor good within a week and shifted himself to the Lahore High Court.I attracted the notice of Sir Henry Richards very early in a rather curious fashion. I was engaged as ajunior in a particular appeal for the appellant. There were several senior Advocates like Dr. Sapru, SirSunder Lal and Mr. O'Conor already appearing in the case. When the case was called on before theChief Justice unfortunately all the senior counsel were engaged in other Courts and in as much as myinstructions were definite that I was to assist my seniors but not to argue the case myself, I stood up andprayed for an adjournment. The Chief Justice looked at the youthful pleader before him and granted myprayer but with a smiling countenance he looked at me and said, "What are you here for? Why don't youargue the case? Are you here for ornament's sake? " I was greatly touched and told him that I was onlytoo ready to argue the case myself but my instructions were precisely to the contrary. I, thereafter, made ita rule of my life never to make a motion for adjournment of any case on the ground of the engagement ofmy seniors elsewhere.Service Judges were usually drawn from the Indian Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and as in those days50 years ago the Indian Civil Service was mostly manned by British people, our Service Judges weremostly all British people.In the first ten years of my practice in the Allahabad High Court, we had several Service Judges oflearning and judicial experience. Some of them I remember vividly-Sir William Tudball, Sir EdwardMaynard Des Chamier, Theodore Caro Piggott, Benjamin Lindsay, Sir Louis Stuart, James Allsop and SirEdward Bennet. Each one was anxious to do justice between the parties but as was to be expected frompeople who had devoted the whole of their lives to a judicial career, right from the start, all of them hadpersonalities and characteristics of their own and the access to their hearts, minds and brains was to befound in different ways. For instance, Mr. Justice Lindsay was a most careful, painstaking Judge. He wasanxious to become acquainted with all the papers on the record and with all the facts and circumstancesof the case in detail. He did not like to look into papers at home and endeavoured to master the casebefore him by studying in Court. He liked the pleadings, the evidence and the judgment to be laid beforehim in full so that nothing important might escape his notice. All this meant and involved a slow processbut it appealed to many members' of the Bar and a hearing before him was greatly longed for, welcomedand appreciated. Mr. Justice Louis Stuart was a perfect opposite of Mr. Justice Lindsay. He endeavouredand generally was able to read the important papers of the case at home and at the hearing in Court hewas brisk and keen to come to the point in a few minutes and to dispose of the case as quickly aspossible. In view of these differing temperaments, methods of approach before the two Judges werealmost diametrically opposed to each other and it was desirable for every advocate to adjust himself tothe mental processes of the two learned Judges.Once I had a very curious, rather amusing, experience before these two learned Judges. They weresitting jointly together on a Division Bench and I had to argue a second appeal before them for theappellant in the case. I opened the case and after shortly stating the facts began reading the plaint. As Iwas doing so Mr. Justice Stuart, who was fully aware of the facts of the case, suddenly put a question tome on the merits. I dropped the plaint and applying myself to Justice Stuart's question began answeringit. I noticed that Justice Lindsay was considerably irritated and he was much annoyed at the interruptioncaused by Justice Stuart's question. In a few minutes after completing my answer to Justice Stuart'squestion I came back to the plain and resumed its reading. I had not proceeded very far when JusticeStuart broke in again with another question and again I had to veer round and apply myself to answeringthat question. I noticed that Justice Lindsay's irritation became still more pronounced and he beganscratching his hair with his fingers. Again after finishing my answer to Justice Stuart I came back to theplaint once again. Shortly, afterwards, came another interruption. This time Justice Lindsay could notcontrol himself and, believe it or not, he stretched his left hand (Justice Stuart was sitting on his left) andplacing it almost within an inch in front of Stuart's mouth tried to choke Justice Stuart off and turning tome observed, "You better continue your argument. " The scene was an extraordinarily facetious one.Every body in court laughed including the two Judges but Justice Lindsay gained his object and JusticeStuart kept quiet all through the hearing and never interrupted again to oppose any other question.Justice Stuart's manner was held by many advocates, seniors and juniors alike, to be much too abruptand indicative of impatience. The Judge was obviously anxious to shorten the hearing of the case asmuch as possible and to dispose it of in a few minutes.Sir Edward Bennet was equally impatient and equally non appreciative of long arguments. He wanted tostudy the case all by himself and so just as the case was briefly opened before him he would invariablystart with a series of questions, "How many witnesses were there, Dr. Katju? " I would give the numberand the names. "Where is the evidence of so and so? " I would give the page. He would read for himselfand then ask about the next witness. The process went on till he concluded his reading of the evidenceand the relevant papers all by himself and then asked me for the main points of my arguments. I wouldput them before him and try to meet the opposite side's version of the case and then after a shortargument from my learned friend on the other side the hearing of the case would come to an end.I need not say that much depends in Court on the temperament of the Advocate also. If he is a laborious,long-winded gentleman, anxious to go into details of the case, he finds the atmosphere before Judges likeJustices Stuart and Bennet rather uncongenial, but advocates who are themselves not given to elaboratepreparations of their briefs and are anxious to put their cases as shortly and precisely as possible, get
Page 4 and 5: along exceedingly well with Judges
Page 6: opposed each other not only in the

Some Judges and Lawyers Whom I Knew By DR. KAILAS NATH ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?