NESAMONY Vs. DEVADASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Additional District Munsiff of padmanabhapuram has ruled that the 6th defendant in 0. S. No. 248 of 1950, a practising advocate, cannot appear on behalf of the 5th defendant in the said case. This revision petition is by the advocate concerned and we have had the advantage of hearing able and elaborate arguments not only from counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent, but also from Mr. N. Kumaran Achan, on behalf of the Advocate General, and Messrs Mathew Muricken and P. Narayana Menon on behalf of the Advocates' Association and the Bar association Ernakulam respectively.

(2.) WE are of the opinion that the matter has to be decided solely with reference to the Travancore Bar Council Act VII of 1122, and the rules framed thereunder, and that consequently the various English and indian decisions cited at the Bar do not arise for consideration.

(3.) ANY violation of the directions embodied in rule 2 may amount to professional misconduct (vide rule 32) and rule 29 clearly states: " that all disputes or differences in professional matters shall be brought up before the Bar Council in the first instance. "