# (i) Legal practitioners to peruse draft decree and correct errors

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 78/VIII-C-21-49
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1914-06-23
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 78/VIII-C-21-49
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/i-legal-practitioners-to-peruse-draft-decree-and-correct-errors-163984
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

517
3.
OBLIGATIONS
(i) Legal practitioners to peruse draft decree and correct errors
G.L. No. 2760/45-36 dated 23rd June, 1914

The duty of counsel after the preparation of decree is indicated in Order XX, rule
21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A notice is posted up stating that the draft
decree is ready. District Judges should take steps to impress on all legal practitioners in
their judgeship that this is done with a view to enabling them to peruse the draft and
correct errors where they occur and they should not neglect to carry out this obvious
duty.
(ii)
Smoking and chewing of betel nuts in courts
G.L. No. 12/67-4(1) dated 23rd April, 1942

The Court takes exception to smoking and the chewing of betel- nuts either by
presiding officer or by counsel appearing before them in court, during the hearing of
cases.
(iii)
Legal practitioners in subordinate courts to inform clients of the necessity of
filing copy of 1st court's judgment with second appeal
G.L. No. 24/25 dated 5th April, 1948 read with
C.L. No. 78/VIII-C-21-49 dated 24th November, 1949 and
C.L. No. 79/VIII-C-21/49 dated 24th November, 1949
The provisions of rule 8, Chapter IX of Rules of Court, 1952, are not strictly
complied with at the time of presentation of the memorandum of appeal and this mostly
due to the clients being not informed by their local counsel about the necessity of filing a
copy of the first court's judgment along with second appeal. This leads to inconvenience
and delay in the admission of appeals.

District Judges should bring the provisions of the rule to the notice of members of
the Bar in their judgeship in order to avoid the possibility of any such omission.
(iv) Form of Dress or Robes to be worn by Advocates
C.L. No. 46/Admin. ̳G' Section D

It has come to the notice of the Court that a number of persons, affianced in the
profession of Law, while appearing as Advocate, in the subordinate courts, do not
observe the form of Dress or Robes to be worn by Advocates and required by the Bar
Council of India Rules, 1975 in Chapter (IV), Part (VI) and notified by Rule 615 of the
General Rules (Civil), 1957.

As has already been stressed by the G.L. No. 23/4513, dated 19th August, 1941,
the wearing of proper dress in court is mandatory and it is the duty of the District &
Sessions Judges as well each presiding Officer to see that not only they are themselves
dressed in prescription with the Rule 615 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 but to make
sure that provisions in Rule 615, cited below, are conscientiously followed, in letter and
spirit, by every Advocate, Pleader, and Vakil.
518

Rules 615 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 read as under:
All presiding officers of sessions and civil courts and pleaders appearing
before them shall wear a buttoned up coat, achkan or sherwani of a black colour.
They may wear an open neck coat of the same colour instead, but if they are not
entitled to use bands, they shall wear a black tie with it. During the summer, the
colour need not be black and a coat, achkan or sherwani of a light colour may be
worn. With the coast, trousers and with the achkan or sherwani chooridar pyjama
or trousers shall be worn. Ladies appearing before the civil courts as pleaders
shall wear a black or a white sari and blouse.

They shall also wear distinctive costumes as indicated below-

(i)
Presiding
Officers
:
A gown made after the pattern of Queen's Counsel's
gown of black silk or stuff, with bands;

(ii)
Advocates
:
A gown similar to a barrister's gown with bands; and

(iii)
Pleaders and
Vakils
:
A gown similar to the gown worn by presiding
officers, but without sleeves and bands.

If it is desired to wear a headdress, a turban may be worn.

The Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, which have been made under Section 49(i)
(gg) of the Advocates Act in Chapter IV, Part VI also lay down the form of dresses or
Robes to be put on by Advocates and the same, for handiness, is quoted below:
―Advocates appearing in the Supreme Court, High Courts, Subordinate Courts,
Tribunal or Authorities shall wear the following as part of their dress, which shall
be sober and dignified.

1.
 Advocates:
(a)
a black buttoned up coat, chapkan, achkan, black sherwani and
white bands with Advocates' Gowns,
or
(b)
black open breast coat, white shirt, white-collar, stiff or soft, and
white bands with Advocates' Gowns.
In either case wear-long trousers (while, black striped or grey) or Dhoti
excluding Jeans.
Provided further that in courts other than the Supreme Court High Courts,
District Courts or City Civil Courts, a black tie may be worn instead of
bands.
2.
Lady Advocates: Lady Advocates may wear either the dress prescribed in
sub rule (b) or the following:-
519
(a)
Black sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar stiff or soft, with white
bands and Advocates' gowns.
(b)
Sarees or long skirts (white or black or any mellow or subdued
colour without any print or design) or flare (white, black or black
striped or gray) or Punjabi dress churidar-kurta or salawar-kurta
with or without dupatta (white or black) or traditional dress with
black coat and bands.
3.
Wearing of Advocates' gown shall be optional except when appearing in
the Supreme Court or in the High Court.
4.
Except Supreme Courts and High Court during summer, wearing of black
coat is not mandatory.‖
The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for removal of doubts has recently passed
resolution on 12.08.2006 as follows:
―In the change brought about in the Dress Rules, there appears to be some
confusion in so far as the Sub Courts are concerned. For removal of any doubt it
is clarified that so far as the courts other than Supreme Court and High Court are
concerned during summer while wearing black coat is not mandatory, the
advocates may appear in white shirt with black, white striped or gray pant with
black tie or band and collar.‖

Therefore, I am directed to request you to kindly inform all the judicial officers,
Advocates, Pleaders & Vakils in the judgeship under your administrative control and they
be asked for strictly following the dress code for abstemiousness and self-respect.
(v)
Clients' monies and the identification of sureties
G.L. No. 13/67-4 dated 4th April, 1932

Some lawyers are not alive to their obligation in dealing with money received
from their clients. As observed in *Miscellaneous Case No. 46 of 1932, the plain and
simple rule, which they ought most implicitly to obey, is that once the lawyer has got the
money of his client in his hands he should disburden himself of it as soon as possible.

Their attention is further drawn to the decision in *Miscellaneous Case No. 72 of
1932. In that case, a pleader guaranteed the ability of a surety to pay a certain sum of
money without in fact having any personal knowledge of him. The accused absconded
and when efforts were made to realize the money from the surety, it was found that he
was practically penniless. The pleader admitted that he had no personal Knowledge but
was misled by the information received from his clerk and the clerk of another lawyer.
This case is of importance as it emphasises that a lawyer may find himself in an
unpleasant situation owing to lack of appreciation of responsibility in a professional
matter without being actually guilty of any act involving moral turpitude.

*
Copy forwarded with G.L. noted on in the bloc