RESPONDENT: M/S JACKS AVIATION PRIVATE LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/11/1998 S.SAGHIR AHMAD, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT Thomas. J. Leave granted. Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial ial functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear. But unfortunately this case reflects apathy on the part of the High Court in affording such protection to a judicial functionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy slammed on him in open court. It all happened in the following manner : A civil suit for recovery of possession of a building was filed by the appellant in the court of the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi (Shri S.N.Dhingra's court). Respondent filed written statement in the suit. Taking advantage of certain admissions made in the written statement, appellant preferred an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for pronouncing a judgment, having regard to such admissions and for passing a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Respondent filed objections to the aforesaid application and prayed for its dismissal. When the application came up for argument on 21.5.1998, respondent filed a strange petition seeking transfer of the case by the judge suo motu. How strange was that petition can be shown by extracting the material portion of it hereunder : "That the counsel for the defendant is a member of Delhi Bar Association and recently vide Resolution dated 15.5.98 Delhi Bar Association has boycotted the appearance of its members in any case before this Hon'ble court. That the counsel for the defendant being a member of the Delhi Bar Association is bound by all the resolutions passed by the executive Committee of Delhi Bar Association and in such circumstances the counsel for the defendant is not in a position to appear in the said case before this Hon'ble Court. That due to the said boycott call, the defendant is taking necessary steps for moving an application under Section 24, C.P.C. before the Hon'ble District Judge, Delhi for the transfer of the aforesaid case, in case the Hon'ble Court is not inclined to suomoto transfer the said case. That serious prejudice will be caused to the interest of the defendant if any adverse order is passed on account of nonappearance of the counsel for the defendant and/or the defendant. That the said boycott call by the Delhi Bar Association could not be conveyed to the defendant and in such circumstances the defendant is also not in a position to cause personal appearance in the said matter. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suo moto transfer the aforesaid matter or in the alternative this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjourn the matter to some future date without passing any adverse order so as to enable the defendant to move necessary application before the Hon'ble District Judge, Delhi." The counsel for the defendant who filed the said petition did not himself appear in the court for addressing arguments on 21.5.1998 nor did he depute any other advocate on his behalf. Learned Additional District Judge then passed the following order: "This application under Section 151 for transfer of the case has been made. There is no provision under Section 151 for transfer of case. Transfe