H V PANCHAKSHARAPPA Vs. K G ESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant engaged respondent, an advocate, to file a suit against one Siddaramma Shetty for recovery of Rs. 60,175/- on the basis of a pronote in the Court of Civil Judge, Shimoga. The suit was numbered as O.S. No. 237/1986. During the pendency of the suit, property situate in Nehru Road belonging to defendant Siddaramma Shetty was got attached by a Court order. The suit was compromised on 16-1-1987. It appears that the attachment of the property continued even after judgment. Prior to the filing of O.S. No. 237/1986, the respondent as a lawyer, had also filed a suit on behalf of Siddaramma Shetty before the Civil Judge. That suit was a partition suit and was numbered as O.S. No. 119/1986. The property involved in the partition suit was the same property which became subject matter of attachment in O.S. No. 237/1986. In the partition suit (O.S. No. 119/1986), admittedly the appellant was not a party. In that suit Siddaramma Shetty had obtained an injunction against the defendants therein with regard to the property situate at Nehru Road, subject-matter of attachment in O.S. No. 237/1986.

(2.) Despite the compromise entered into on 16-1-1987 in O.S. No. 237/1986, Siddaramma Shetty did not pay the decretal amount. The respondent is stated to have filed a miscellaneous application under Order XXIV Rule 4(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being No. 105/1990, on behalf of the appellant in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga entering full satisfaction of the decretal amount with a further prayer to remove the order of attachment made in the suit. This application was supported by an affidavit signed by the appellant and sworn before an Oath Commissioner. Miscellaneous application No. 105/90, however, was not pressed and subsequent thereto execution proceedings were initiated in respect of the decree in O.S. No. 237/1986.

(3.) The appellant on coming to know that respondent was also a counsel for Siddaramma Shetty in O.S. No. 119/1986 filed a complaint alleging professional misconduct against the respondent under Section 35 of the Advocates Act before the State Bar Council at Bangalore on 19-2-1992. One of the main allegations raised in that complaint was that the respondent had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 105/1990 without any instructions from the appellant. The respondent denied the allegations and asserted that Miscellaneous Application No. 105/1990 had been filed on the instructions of the appellant and that the appellant had himself signed the application as also the affidavit, which was duly sworn before the Oath Commissioner. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council dismissed the complaint filed against the respondent on 6-1-1995. Against dismissal of the complaint, the appellant filed an appeal before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. Vide order dated 25-3-1996 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.