DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE Vs. S KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of a reference made on 30-1-1951 by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, to the Registrar of this Court, requesting that action may be taken against the respondent, under Section 11, Legal Practitioners Act. 1 is stated in that reference that the respondent who is a pleader, failed to refund a sum of Rs. 150/- entrusted to him by the Municipal Council of Mirle in Krishnarajanagar Taluk. The High Court forwarded the said reference to the District Judge, Mysore, for enquiry and report. The learned District Judge after recording evidence and taking the statement of the pleader, came to the conclusion that the pleader had failed to refund the balance of the amount due by him to the Municipal Council either at the time when the demand was made or within a reasonable time thereafter The said report is for consideration before us under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act.

(2.) It is seen from the records that the pleader was entrusted by the Municipal Council of Mirle with a sum of Rs. 250/- in the year 1938 and 1939 for filing suits and when the Council required him to render accounts and refund the balance due, he took up the very unreasonable attitude of requesting the Council to entrust him with additional cases so that the balance due by him may be worked off against the moneys which he expected as his fee for such additional cases which he prayed to be entrusted with. With these importunities, he went on gaining time and occasioned an unreasonable delay in complying with the demand. It is further seen that the arrears due to the Municipal Council were Rs. 181/- and when the pleader disputed the actual figure, he was asked in February 1950 to deposit a sum of Rs. 150/- and in his reply dated 8-2-1951 the pleader agreed to settle the account and deposit the amount within a month. In our opinion the pleader could not have expected a more lenient or generous attitude than was shown to him by the Council, But in spite of this the pleader did not deposit the amount till so late as 8-6-1951. On these materials the learned District Judge found that there was no excuse or justification for the delay of four months in making good the amount, which in fact is nothing short of. misappropriation. This is essentially a Question of fact and the High Court will not ordinarily interfere with the finding arrived at by an enquiring tribunal unless it is shown that that finding is manifestly unreasonable or perverse.

(3.) Mr. S. Srikantaiya, the learned Counsel for the respondent here, was frankly unable to advance any convincing reasons to show that the finding of the learned District Judge was erroneous or unreasonable, or point out any justifying circumstances he contented himself by making an appeal for mercy and lenient treatment of his client.