L D JAISINGHANI Vs. NARAINDAS N PUNJABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is an Advocate against whom a complaint was made on 25th May, 1971 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra by the Respondent Naraindas M. Punjabi. As the complaint was not disposed of within six months of its receipt by the State Bar Council it was transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India Under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, 1961 for disposal.

(2.) The complainant alleged as follows: He was the co-owner with two others of certain premises of which one of the tenants was M/s. Hindustan Electric and Radio Corporation. He, together with the other co-owners, had filed suits Nos. 840 of 1961 and 1040 of 1964 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the Corporation. These suits were off-shoots of a prior proceeding No. 4174 of 1960 in the Small Cause Court for the electment of the Corporation, which was dismissed on 10th March, 1961. S. C. Suit No. 840 of 1961 was, thereafter, filed, but, it was withdrawn on 19th September, 1963, with liberty to file a fresh suit. On or about 10th February, 1964, the Advocate concerned, L. D. Jaisinghani, took Rs.350/- from the complainant for filing the fresh suit in the Bombay City Civil Court and gave the complainant a copy of the plaint in which No. 1040 of 1964 was given as the number of the new suit. The complainant, after waiting for a few years made casual enquiries from the Advocate as to when Suit No. 1040 of 1964 would come up for hearing. The Advocate used to tell him that it would come up any day during 1969 to 1970. In all this period, neither the defendant Corporation was remitting any rents nor depositing anything in Court. During 1969 to 1970, the complainant requested the Advocate to rents by the Corporation. But, the Advocate kept putting this off by pleading that the suit may come up any day for hearing in the ordinary course. The two co-owners sold their shares in the building to the complainant on 24th November, 1970 and 4th January, 1971, respectively, so that he became the sole landlord and owner of the property. After this, the complainant had an additional reason to request L. D. Jaisinghani, the Advocate, to file a petition for the amendment of the plaint so that he may figure as the sole plaintiff and also apply to the Court for payment of rents. The Advocate agreed to do this. Nevertheless, he went on procrastinating until, by a letter dated 8th January, 1971, the complainant pressed him to do something very definitely. After this the Advocate got a Notice of Motion sworn by the complainant before Mr. Tiwari, Superintendent of Bombay City Civil Court. The Advocate then informed the complainant that Notice of Motion had been lodged in Court and served on the Corporation's Advocate. Mr. Bhagat, through a clerk, named Adwani, of a late Advocate Mr. Wadhwa, and that it would come up for hearing soon. As nothing seemed to come up for hearing, the complainant at last addressed a letter to the Registrar of the Bombay City Civil Court on 9/16th March, 1971, informing him of the lodging of the Notice of Motion and enquiring what had happened to it. The Advocate, L. D. Jaisinghani, then told the complainant that the matter would be heard on 20th April, 1971, at 12 noon, before the Judge Mr. Kattal. On 20th April, 1971, on enquiry from the office of the Court, the complainant learnt that no Notice of Motion is there and that No. 1040 of 1964 was a fictitious reference given by the Advocate of a suit which was never filed by him. It turned out to be another suit filed by anoher person through another Advocate. When Tendolkar, the Head Clerk enquired about the Notice of Motion from the Advocate L. D. Jaisinghani, he said that he had given away all the papers to Mr. Adwani, the ex-clerk of Mr. Wadhwa and that he would enquire further after his return from Bhopal. The complainant alleged that the Advocate had thus demonstrated that he had committed a breach of trust and faith and cheated the complainant by fraudulent means and was guilty of serious professional misconduct.

(3.) In reply, the Advocate, while denying the truthfulness of the allegations set out above, admitted that he had filed suit No. 840 of 1961, but he stated that he could not remember the facts fully as it was an old matter. The Advocate also denied having filed or having been asked to file any suit No. 1040 of 1964. The Advocate, however, admitted receiving the sum of Rs.350/-, but, according to him, this was part payment of his fee towards a proposed suit of which a draft was handed over to the complainant. The Advocate's case (supra) was that as the complainant was neither serious nor willing to incur the expenses of litigation and had not supplied the necessary details or expenses, the suit could not be filed. He denied the truth of other allegations so far as he himself was concerned. He asserted that the letter to the Registrar must have been written by the complainant and enquiries made with a view to creating evidence. His case also was that, apart from the draft copy of the plaint which had a number of blanks in it, including a blank space for the number of the suit, the other documents produced by the complainant were fabricated with some ulterior motive. The Advocate did not set up what could be the reason for the complainant's displeasure with him or attempt to involve him falsely. In his evidence to alleged that this was due to the fact that the Advocate has refused to give evidence in a case in which the complainant had been proceeded against for malicious prosecution.