BHAGWAN Vs. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 23.8.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Committee No. 1 of the Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru, in DCE. No. 72/2014 on I.A. No. II at Annexure-K.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that petitioner got enrolled with Karnataka State Bar Council as an advocate and he is practicing at Belgavi. The third respondent herein is the wife of one Sunil Raikar, who had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Belgavi numbered as M.C. No. 86/2012. The third respondent approached him and entrusted the case to him. Since, she was placed ex parte on 17.9.2012, in her presence an application was filed and the ex parte order was got set aside and matter was adjourned to 27.9.2013 for conciliation. Thereafter, the third respondent did not turn up for filing objections nor did she give any instructions to proceed in the matter. The Family Court proceeded with the case and by its judgment and decree dated 06.02.2013 granted decree of divorce to the husband of the third respondent, which came to be challenged by the third respondent before this Court in MFA. No. 22031/2013. In the said appeal, two applications i.e. I.A. Nos. 1 and 2/2013 for stay and for condonation of delay were filed and this Court by judgment and decree dated 9.7.2014 allowed the said appeal setting aside the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, against which the husband of the third respondent filed SLP.(C). No. 21799/2014 before the Supreme Court, which was converted to Civil Appeal No. 415/2015. The Apex Court, by order dated 14.1.2015 allowed the Civil Appeal and set aside the judgment of this Court in MFA. No. 22031/2013. In the meantime, the third respondent-wife filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Bar Council as per Annexure-"E", which in turn has been referred to the Disciplinary Committee under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Pursuant to the notice issued by the Committee, the petitioner has submitted reply along with all the necessary documents and has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking closure of the disciplinary proceedings. The Committee by order dated 23.08.2015 vide Annexure-K has dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant-respondent No. 3 had executed a vakalath in favour of the petitioner and on her instructions, the petitioner had filed vakalath in M.C. No. 86/2012. Subsequently, she had not contacted the petitioner and as such he had not filed any objections. In the complaint, which is filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-"E" it is stated thus:-