DHANRAJ SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. NATHULAL VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Appeals have been preferred by Advocate Dhanraj Singh Choudhary (for short, advocate Appellant) being dissatisfied with the two orders dated October 31, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. By the principal order, the advocate Appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of one year from the date of communication of the order.

(2.) On the complaint made by the Respondent-Nathulal Vishwakarma against the advocate Appellant to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. The allegation of professional mis-conduct against the advocate Appellant is that in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 executed by Jitender Singh Bakna in favour of Smt. Suchi Gupta concerning sale of property House No. 423 situate in Nursing Ward, Jabalpur, which was attested by the advocate Appellant, it has been stated that on the Western side of the saleable property one shop adjacent to Sahara lounge presently in occupation of the complainant has already been transferred by the vendor to the advocate appellant by giving him the ownership right, although vendors father Sardar Desh Singh Bakna had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the complainant on November 15, 1991 and the vendors father has already received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the sale consideration. The complainant alleged that he had already filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated November 15, 1991 which was pending and was within the knowledge of the advocate Appellant. As a matter of fact, the advocate appellant had instituted a suit on behalf of Sardar Desh Singh Bakna against the complainant for eviction of the said shop showing the complainant as a tenant of Sardar Desh Singh Bakna.

(3.) On notice, the advocate Appellant filed reply to the complaint and denied the allegations made against him. In his reply, the advocate Appellant explained the circumstances in which the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 was executed. He expressed his ignorance about the statement made in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 regarding sale of shop in occupation of the complainant to the advocate Appellant by the vendor.