SARDUL SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by a complainant against orders passed by the Bar Council of India on 27-4-92 in a review petition filed by the first respondent-advocate whereby the review was allowed and the order passed by the Bar Council of India, dt. 4-10-1991 was set aside and the order of the Delhi Bar Council dt. 2-5-90 was restored.

(2.) In this appeal, notice was ordered on 1-11-93 and the first respondent was served and he also filed a counter. Thereafter the petitioner complainant filed a rejoinder dt. 18-3-94. The matter came up for hearing in this Court on 29-1-99 and was heard for considerable time when neither the first respondent nor his counsel Mr. N. S. Bisht were present. After more than an hour and half the said counsel appeared and represented that the file was taken away by the first respondent from him two months earlier on the ground that the first respondent wanted to engage another counsel and thereafter no instructions were given to him (Mr. Bisht). In these circumstances, we adjourned the matter and directed fresh notice to the first respondent at house No. 190, first floor, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi and informed him that if he does not appear the case would be proceeded ex parte. The office has now filed a report dt. 8-2-99 that this Court's order dt. 21-1-99 has been complied with and notice was issued to the first respondent and acknowledgement was also received. It is further stated that none is appearing on behalf of the first respondent. After some adjournment, the matter has come up again today and neither the first respondent nor his counsel are present. Therefore, we have no choice but to dispose of the matter upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and taking into account the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent and the further rejoinder filed by the appellant.

(3.) The facts of the case are that on 29-11-1984 the Bar Council of Delhi held Sri Pritam Singh the first respondent guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of three years. The first respondent filed an appeal in this Court and obtained stay of the said order of the Bar Council of Delhi. The appeal preferred by the first respondent before the Bar Council of India was dismissed on 13-12-1986 and a notification was issued on 22-1-1987, the operative portion of which reads as fol-lows: