The Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Rajesh S. Patil, has clarified that Rule 6 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) prohibits an advocate from appearing before a court or tribunal where a relative is part of the bench, rather than barring an advocate from representing their own family members. The Court delivered this clarification while disposing of a writ petition arising from eviction proceedings, in which it also permitted the tenant to produce additional documents relating to residential properties under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and expedited the pending appeal.
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed by petitioner-tenant Maheshkumar B. Patel, challenging an order dated June 19, 2018, passed in an application under Exhibit 40 in Appeal No. 8 of 2014. The tenant had suffered an eviction decree before the Trial Court on the ground of the landlord’s bona fide requirement for residential premises.
To demonstrate that the landlord possessed adequate alternative properties to meet their requirement, the tenant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC before the Appellate Court seeking permission to produce additional documents. After the Appellate Court rejected the application, the tenant approached the Bombay High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
During the proceedings, an objection was raised under Section I (‘Duty to the Court’), Rule 6 of Appendix G of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, framed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The rule provides:
“An advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or practice in any way before a Court, Tribunal or Authority mentioned in Section 30 of the Act, if the sole or any member thereof is related to be Advocate as father, grandfather, son, grandson, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, father-in-law, daughter-in-law or sister-in-law.”
Counsel for Respondent No. 4 submitted that Rule 6 contains no prohibition against an advocate representing their own family members in a court proceeding. Conversely, Advocate R. R. Tiwari, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Rule 6 compels an advocate not to appear for any of their family members.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon analyzing Rule 6 of the Standards of Professional Conduct, the High Court rejected the objection raised by the petitioner’s counsel, observing:
“In my opinion, it bars an advocate from appearing in any Court Tribunal or authority where his relative as mentioned therein, is a part of the Court, Tribunal or Authority.”
Regarding the production of additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the Court analyzed the list of 27 properties relied upon by the tenant. The Court observed that items 11 to 18, 26, and 27 were commercial properties. Because the eviction suit was founded specifically on the bona fide requirement of residential premises, the Court held that these commercial properties would not be considered by the Rent Court.
By consent of the parties, the landlord conceded to allow documents concerning the residential premises to be admitted as additional evidence before the Appellate Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party, noting that the tenant’s writ petition had remained pending for admission for over seven years.
Decision and Directions
The High Court directed the Appellate Court to consider the additional documents pertaining to residential premises listed at pages 49 and 50, while excluding items 11 to 18, 26, and 27. The Court granted the landlord the right to challenge the veracity of the newly produced documents by adducing counter-documents or oral evidence, while directing the appellant-tenant to prove any disputed documents in accordance with Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
The Court ordered this evidentiary exercise to be completed by September 30, 2026, directing both parties not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Expediting Appeal No. 8 of 2014 pending before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bandra, the High Court directed the court to make its best endeavors to dispose of the appeal by the end of December 2026. Furthermore, both parties were directed to submit written arguments, along with indexed judgments, paragraph citations, and propositions of law, as soon as the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
Case Details:
Case Title: Maheshkumar B. Patel vs. Mr. Laxmikant Murlidhar Sharma (Since Deceased) Thr. LRs. Sunil Laxmikant Sharma & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1382 of 2019
Bench: Justice Rajesh S. Patil
Date: July 21, 2026
