Moot Problem 3

MOOT COURT PROBLEM- 3
Paresh Kalita & anr. v. Kumar
Facts of the case:
Kumar, resident of Palashbari, who owned 10 acres of agricultural land situated

at Palashbari Circle, under Survey No.10/5 filed a suit numbered as T.S.
234/2022 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kamrup for Declaration and
Injunction against Bishal Bora on the ground that he is the sole owner of the
agricultural land in dispute. On receipt of summons, Bishal Bora appeared
before the said Court and engaged a lawyer to conduct his case. Bishal Bora not
only opposed the suit claim but also filed a counter claim against Kumar for
Declaration and injunction in respect of the said property.
The suit was decreed in favor of Kumar declaring him as the owner of 10 acres
of agricultural land and restrained Bishal Bora from interfering with peaceful
enjoyment of the said agricultural property by Kumar.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in T.S.234/2022 Bishal Bora filed

Regular Appeal before the First Appellate Court. On receipt of Appeal Notice,
Kumar engaged Sri Paresh Kalita, a famous civil lawyer in Kamrup, to
represent and argue his case before the Appellate Court. Kumar paid Fifty
Thousand rupees as initial fee to Sri Paresh Kalita.
When the Appeal was posted for hearing, Advocate representing Bishal Bora
argued the matter and completed his side. However, Sri Paresh Kalita sought
several adjournments to argue on behalf of Kumar. He did not turn up to argue
even when it was posted for final argument.
The Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the
counter claim of Bishal Bora in T.S.23/2022. The Appellate Court in its
judgment noted the absence of Respondent’s advocate (Sri Paresh Kalita)
during the course of argument and pointed out that the Court had no assistance
from Respondent’s Advocate in deciding the matter.
The judgment of the Appellate Court was death knell for Kumar as the land in
dispute was life line for him and his family.
Kumar enquired with his Advocate about his absence during hearing of the
Appeal but did not get a satisfactory answer. However, Sri Paresh Kalita
advised Kumar to file Second Appeal against the Judgment of the First
Appellate Court and referred the name of Mr.Alam. Kumar followed his advice
and engaged Mr. Alam for filing Second Appeal and paid rupees One Lakh as
initial fee.
Mr. Alam took his own time to file Second Appeal and by the time Second
Appeal was filed, the limitation period was over. Thereafter, he filed Second
Appeal along with an Application to condone the delay.
The Second Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation
period since no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. Sri. Alam
advised Kumar to approach the Supreme Court.
Kumar virtually had no means to continue the litigation before the Supreme
Court as he had lost all the money in litigation. Bishal Bora spared no time to
execute the decree passed in his favor by the First Appellate Court and took
possession over the land in dispute.
Having lost agricultural land, which was life line for him and his family due to
inefficiency and negligence of his Advocates, Sri Paresh Kalita and Mr. Alam,
Kumar filed a case against them before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC), at New Delhi for deficiency of service and
claimed Ten crore rupees as compensation.
Kumar argued that there was ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of both the
Advocates who failed to pursue his case before the Appellate Courts in an
efficient and professional manner. He also contended that both the advocates
were highly negligent, one of them did not argue his case before the first
Appellate Court and the other advocate failed to file Second Appeal in time
before the High Court and got it dismissed at the threshold, as result of which he
had lost his property and means of livelihood. On notice, both the advocates
appeared and argued that, advocates are immune from any legal action under
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as Kumar is not a ‘consumer’ under the
Act and their relationship as client and advocate is a ‘contract of personal
service’ and not a ‘contract for personal service.’ They argued that they are
merely his agents and represented him in the Court and are Officers of the Court
and no legal action can be initiated for actions done in the course of judicial
proceeding. Further, it was argued that, it is for the Court to decide the case on
its merit and no advocate can guarantee the result.
The NCDRC, however, allowed the claim of Kumar holding that there was
‘deficiency of service’ and awarded Ten crore rupees as compensation and
directed both the advocates to pay together the award amount within two
months from the date of the order.
The said Order created havoc among the legal fraternity and became national
news. Within two months of passing of this Order there were two thousand
cases filed against advocates across the country before consumer forums for
deficiency of service.
Both the advocates approached the Supreme Court against the award of
NCDRC and contended that among other things that the said award is also in
violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court
issued stay against the operation, execution of the award.
Now the case has come up for hearing before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the Advocates fall within the provisions of the Consumer

Protection Act, 2019?
2. Whether the award is in violation of the fundamental right to practice any

profession, or to carry on any occupation as contemplated under Article
19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India?
Argue for both the sides.

Moot Problem 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Problem 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Problem 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOOT COURT PROBLEM- 3

Paresh Kalita & anr. v. Kumar

Facts of the case:

Kumar, resident of Palashbari, who owned 10 acres of agricultural land situated

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in T.S.234/2022 Bishal Bora filed

1. Whether the Advocates fall within the provisions of the Consumer

2. Whether the award is in violation of the fundamental right to practice any

Argue for both the sides.

You might also like