THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF

INDIA

D.C. APPEAL NO. 16 OF 1993

By Ismail Mufeed
10 BA LLB ‘B’
1850201 18-01-2023
CASE DETAILS

The Disciplinary D.C. Appeal No. Decided On: Appellants: ‘A’

• The complainant-respondent had executed a registered sale deed with an option to re-
purchase the property in Deeravalli (village) in favour of Lanka Samba Siva Rao.
However, he continued to remain in possession of the said house property. By taking
advantage of the sale deed, the Vendee (Siva Rao) made attempts to occupy the
subject matter in collusion with the police forcibly. The complainant filed a suit
seeking an injunction against the said Shri Rao and engaged the respondent-appellant
in the said suit, which was registered as 87 of 1983. As a counterblast, Shri Rao also
filed a suit being O.S.No. 89 of 1985 based on the afore-mentioned sale deed shown
the same to be a mortgage deed and for recovery of the mortgage amount and thus
foreclosure. In the said suit, the respondent-complainant filed his written statement
alleging the document was a sham and nominal.
• The charge is that the respondent-appellant did not prosecute his case diligently and
neither informed him about the progress in the case nor made the deficiency good.
The suit was dismissed on 15.04.1986 for non-payment of deficit court fees, the fact
was not disclosed to him. The stage of the suit was also enquired about on several
occasions and on 15.04.1986, on which date the written statement in O.S No. 89 of
1985 was finalised and even consequent thereafter.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

• He then heard a rumour on 23.09.2022 that O.S.No. 87 of 1985 has been dismissed while
O.S.No 89 of 1985 has been allowed. On verification, the said rumour was found to be
true that O.S.No. 87 of 1985 was dismissed as long back as 15.04.1986.
• On 24.09.1991 the complainant asked for the return of the files of both cases and the
consent of the changed advocate for engaging a different Advocate. On further enquiry it
was revealed on 25.09.1991 that on 20.09.1991 in O.S.No. 89 of 1985 two witnesses were
examined, and the suit was posted for 27.09.1991 for the examination of the third witness
on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit. On 25.09.1991 the respondent Advocate gave the case
papers relating to the O.S.No. 89 of 1985 and promised to report no instructions on
27.09.1991. On 27.09.1991 the case was first adjourned on a request on behalf of the
plaintiff to 04.10.1991 but after the defendant’s side left the court, the case was advanced,
and P.W.3 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and cross-examined by the respondent
Advocate after having promised to report only on instructions.
• The charged advocate has blamed the complainant for the non-submission of the court fees
and has denied the complainant's case.
LAWS APPLIED:
Section 35 of The Advocates Act, 1961:
35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct.—
(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any
advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for
disposal to its disciplinary committee. 1[(1A) The State Bar Council may, either of its own motion
or on an application made to it by any person interested, withdraw a proceeding pending before its
disciplinary committee and direct the inquiry to be made by any other disciplinary committee of
that State Bar Council.]
(2) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council 2[***] shall fix a date for the hearing of the
case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Advocate-
General of the State.
(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the
Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following orders, namely:
—
(a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar
Council, direct that the proceedings be filed;
(b) reprimand the advocate;
LAWS APPLIED:

(c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit;
(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates.
(4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause (c) of sub-section
(3), he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from practising in any
court or before any authority or person in India.
(5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate-General under sub-section (2), the
Advocate-General may appear before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar
Council either in person or through any advocate appearing on his behalf.
3[Explanation.—In this section, 4[section 37 and section 38], the expressions
“Advocate-General” and Advocate-General of the State” shall, in relation to the
Union territory of Delhi, mean the Additional Solicitor General of India.]
ANALYSIS

Parties were heard on 22.6.1995, assisted by their counsel, and the judgment was reserved. In
the above-noted matter, written arguments are to have been submitted by the parties. We have
gone through the evidence on record, written arguments submitted by the appellant and the
order passed by the State Bar Council. The mercy appeal to has been made by the daughter of
the charged advocate who has recently joined the profession. The State Bar Council after
having scrutinised evidence on record has passed reasoned order with which we all agree, and
there is no reason to differ. The State Disciplinary Committee has framed as many as eight.
issues and has made the following observations-
1. When C.W.3 (complainant had asked for consent on the vakalat to change the lawyer charged
Advocate: he should not have hesitated to walk out of the brief by giving consent.
2. It is unbecoming of an Advocate to keep the client in darkness about the progress of the case,
and in this case, the charged Advocate kept the client in darkness about the cheque slip relating
to the payment of court fees and dismissal of the suit which is reprehensible and the reasons
given by R.W.1 and R.W.2 about which the financial capacity of the complainant to pay the
same are not acceptable
ANALYSIS

3. The charged Advocate has cross-examined the witnesses without instructions from his
clients and knowledge of his clients, especially in view of the fact that the complainant has
withdrawn instructions and their confidence was shaken which was brought to the notice
of the bar council. The allegation that Suit No. 87 of 1985 was dismissed on 16.04.1986
for non-payment of deficit court fees stands established. It is also accepted that the
Advocate concerned kept his client in darkness about the fate of the case till 23.09.1991.
4. The charged Advocate himself admitted that he refused to file a delay condonation
petition for restoration of original Suit No. 87 of 1985 which is unbecoming of him.
5. The evidence of the complainant to the effect that the charged Advocate has not returned
the record relating to the Original Suit. 87 of 1985 has been accepted. It is further accepted
that the charged Advocate promised to report no instructions on 27.9.1991 in Original Suit
No.69 of 1985 in the Court of Sub Judge, Gudivada but cross-examined P.W.3 in the
absence of the Complainant.
ANALYSIS

3. The charged Advocate has cross-examined the witnesses without instructions from his
clients and knowledge of his clients, especially in view of the fact that the complainant has
withdrawn instructions and their confidence was shaken which was brought to the notice
of the bar council. The allegation that Suit No. 87 of 1985 was dismissed on 16.04.1986
for non-payment of deficit court fees stands established. It is also accepted that the
Advocate concerned kept his client in darkness about the fate of the case till 23.09.1991.
4. The charged Advocate himself admitted that he refused to file a delay condonation
petition for restoration of original Suit No. 87 of 1985 which is unbecoming of him.
5. The evidence of the complainant to the effect that the charged Advocate has not returned
the record relating to the Original Suit. 87 of 1985 has been accepted. It is further accepted
that the charged Advocate promised to report no instructions on 27.9.1991 in Original Suit
No.69 of 1985 in the Court of Sub Judge, Gudivada but cross-examined P.W.3 in the
absence of the Complainant.
CONCLUSION

The aforesaid findings recorded by the State Bar Council are based on
evidence on record. There is no reason to differ from the same. In the
circumstances, we affirm the order passed by the State Bar Council
and direct the appellant to observe the punishment awarded by the
State Bar Council. The stay order granted by the Bar Council shall
stand vacated.