Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6328 OF 2005
T. LAXMAN KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRADEEP KUMAR PATIL ... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
We have heard Mr.Y.Raja Gopala Rao, learned counsel
for the appellant and perused the order passed by the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India impugned in
the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.
Mr.Y.Raja Gopala Rao, submits that a Civil Suit
(O.S.No.38/1996) was filed by the present appellant against the
proprietor, Panthulu Hotel, No.14-60, New Bazar, Badepalli,
Mahabubnagar District. The appellant did not instruct his
advocate (respondent herein) not to press the Suit. Learned
counsel would submit that had the Memo (Exh.R/1) been prepared
on the instructions of the appellant, it would have been filed
by the respondent before the Trial Court on February 16, 1996.
He invited our attention to the deposition of the respondent
before the Disciplinary Committee.
The Disciplinary Committee, on consideration of the
evidence on record, concluded that the respondent-advocate made
endorsement on the plaint 'as not pressed' on the basis of
the Memo (Exh.R/1). The Disciplinary Committee found the
explanation of the advocate natural.
: 2 :
We have no justifiable reason to take a view
different from the Disciplinary Committee in this regard. If
the Complainant is right in his allegation that the respondent
obtained signatures on blank papers and used the same in
preparing the Memo (Exh.R/1) and in fact he did not give
instructions to his advocate not to press the suit, he would
not have waited for two years in filing the complaint. The
explanation that the appellant had no knowledge of the
dismissal of Suit for about two years hardly merits acceptance.
In a Suit of this nature, where the grievance of the appellant
(Plaintiff in the Suit) was that the defendant has put the
generator in his property and he sought removal of generator,
he obviously would have been keen to know the progress in the
Suit from the advocate on every date and not let the
proceedings remain dormant for two years. Moreover, had the
respondent (advocate) acted without instructions in not
pressing the suit, the appellant would have definitely taken
steps for restoration of the suit which he never did. The
appellant, as a matter of fact, has failed to prove by cogent
and reliable evidence that the Memo (Exh.R/1) was a forged and
fabricated document and the generator had not been removed by
the defendant. In the absence of such proof, there is every
likelihood that the defendant having removed the generator on
the basis of compromise between the parties, the appellant did
not want to pursue the suit.
: 3 :
All in all, consideration of the matter by the
Disciplinary Committee is proper and warrants no interference
by us.
The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no
order as to costs.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that there was no justification for the Disciplinary
Committee to impose costs of Rs.3,000/- upon the appellant
(complainant). Learned counsel for the respondent agreed that
the order of the Disciplinary Committee asking the Complainant
to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- may be set aside. We order
accordingly.
.....................J.
(R.M. LODHA)
.....................J.
(JAGDEESH SINGH KHEHAR)
NEW DELHI;
22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011