Professional Ethics and Professional Accounting System (Clinical Course III)

Case Study
Savitri Devi V. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others
(1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 577

Submitted By
Rishabh Saxena
PRN 14010223027
Division C
Group A
Batch 2014-19

Submitted To
Mr.Vikram Singh
Course-in-charge

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL DEEMED UNIVERSITY

 CERTIFICATE

The project titled “Case Study - Savitri Devi V. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, (1999) 2
Supreme Court Cases 577 is submitted to Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Professional Ethics and
Professional Accounting System (Clinical Course III) as part of Internal Assessment is based on my
original work carried out under the guidance of Mr. Vikram Singh in January and February, 2019. The
Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected
later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date:
 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the people involved in successful completion of this project. Firstly, Dr. C J
Rawandale, Director SLS Noida, for providing me with this opportunity to learn and grow.

Then to the faculty in-charge for Professional Ethics and Professional Accounting System (Clinical
Course III), Mr.Vikram Singh, for all his efforts, from the initial help with the development of ideas and
consequent encouragement throughout till completion of this. I am really grateful for his help.
INTRODUCTION
The present case is in regard to a civil suit filed before the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur against her four
sons for a decree for maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family.
The point of concern in the present case is the sale of property carried out by the first defendant which
was in breach, contempt and disregard of the order of injunction passed by the Court. The case reached
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through the ordinary course of appeal filed by the Appellant.

BACKGROUND
Briefly delving the into the factual background of the matter, as stated above, the appellant filed a civil
suit before the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur against her four sons for a decree for maintenance and for
creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family. An interim application for injunction to
restrain her sons from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit was also filed
alongwith the suit. The counsels for parties from both the sides expressed their consent before the Court
that during the pendency of the case, the parties could be directed not to sell the suit property to any
third person. The order passed by the court was based on the said consent.
It was revealed that there are four pieces of land of which, the first defendant sold his 1/4 th share from
three the respective properties to respondents 3, 4 and 5. Pertinently, the said transactions took place
between August 19, 1992 and January 1, 1993, despite of standing court order passed by the Ld. Munsif
on August 18, 1992 directing the parties not to transfer the disputed property described in the plaint in
favour of any other person till the final disposal of the suit. It is now that the respondents 3 to 5 filed
with the court an application under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 for impleading them as parties to
the suit. As per the application, the respondents 3 to 5 alleged that the first defendant had received the
sale consideration before the execution of the sale deed and had also granted the possession of the
properties. Allegations claiming that the plaintiff and the defendants had colluded together to cause loss
to the respondents were also mentioned in the application. Interestingly, the appellant/plaintiff opposed
the sale of the properties by alleging the same as breach, contempt and disregard of the order of
injunction as passed by the court. Subsequently, the trial court passed a detailed order to implead
respondents 3 to 5 in the suit. The appellant filed for a revision before the Court of District Judge,
Gorakhpur which was subsequently dismissed. However, certain strictures were passed against the
conduct of the first defendant, assuming that he was aware of the order of injunction and the respondents
3 to 5 were allowed to be parties on the pretext of having no knowledge of the suit. This order was
further challenged in the High Court which was also dismissed on the ground that the court below can
also exercise the power even suo moto to implead a person whom it considered as proper and necessary
party.
When the order of the High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was on behalf
of the appellant that the sales in favour of respondents 3 to 5 are non est in the eyes of the law as the
transaction was executed in violation of the court restraining the defendants from alienating the suit
property till the disposal of the suit.
Now the points to concentrate are the ones which highlight the observations made by the Supreme Court
upon various aspects as argued before it.

ANALYSIS
The Court highlights the fact, that there is a dispute as to whether the first defendant in the suit was a
party to the order of injunction made by the trial court on August 18, 1992 and contempt proceedings
against him are already pending. It also refers to the plea raised by the first defendant that the first
respondent had fraudulently made him a party and deceived the Court, which also has to be decided
before the validity of the sale could be established. The court further goes on to refer to the plea raised
by the respondents 3 to 5 that they were bona fide transferees for value in good faith may have to be
decided before it can be held that the sales in their favour created no interest in the property. The plea of
the respondents 3 to 5 have to be either decided in the suit or in the application filed by respondents 3 to
5 for impleadment in the suit. In any case, it cannot be said that respondents 3 to 5 are neither necessary
nor proper parties to the suit.
With so many cross references, it is pertinent to analyse the direction sought by the Court to move in the
judgment.
Was the Court’s decision appropriate?
The appropriateness of the court’s decision is a secondary aspect as the observation has multiple faces.
Clearly the references made by the counsels for the respective parties have been around the question
whether impleading respondents 3 to 5 in the suit is justified. Given that the judicial precedents as
referred by the counsels before the court dealt with the aspect of the validity sale of the suit property and
with Order I, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. However, there were other underlying issues as
mentioned above, for instance whether the first defendant was in contempt of the trial court's order of
injunction. Such issues seem to only have been mentioned in passing by the Court throughout the
judgment.
Therefore, speaking of appropriateness of the judgment, it really depends upon the perspective with
which we're reading the judgment.
Does this decision change/conform with existing law?
As per Order I, Rule 10, a court has the power to implead parties at any stage of the proceedings in a
suit, provided the reasons are given for it. This power can also be exercised suo moto by the lower courts
as well. From that perspective, yes. It can be said that the decision of the court conforms with the
existing law. But at the same point, it is felt throughout the judgment that the court could have elaborate
and categorised the observations in a better manner so as to maintain a balanced flow of thought.
Did the court adequately justify it's reasoning?

There was a definite need to clarify the law, as has been done sufficiently by the judgment. There is a set
process of removal of judges from their offices. The process is long and complicated so as to ensure that
there is no hasty decision making. The process of impeachment is essential as an exercise of checks and
balances within different organs of the State. However, it is a machinery that certainly cannot be used as
a panacea for all kinds of misgivings or misbehaviours. Bad conduct can be classified into minor
misconduct and major misconduct. The process of impeachment should be available only for the latter.
In case of minor misconduct, there needs to be reformation and an erring judge must be made to realize
his folly. Therefore, the only question that remained was - who is the competent authority to take such a
disciplinary action.
It is surprising that the learned drafting committee as well as the constituent assembly while drafting the
Constitution of India did not provide for any recourse to such deeds. Therefore, it was left to the judges
in the present case to settle on a manner in which such cases can be dealt in the future.

CONCLUSION
We saw in this case another instance of judicial over reach. When there was a vacuum, the judiciary
gave itself the powers to judge itself. Such instances, as well as others mentioned above, clearly seem a
violation of the principle of nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet. The fourth pillar of democracy, the
media, had been compromised a long time ago. Recent actions of the third pillar – the judiciary, will
lead it down the same path very soon.

REFERENCES
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149
2. Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability
v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1598
3. M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1407

sss