STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. M A PLEADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an enquiry under secs. 25 and 26 of the Bombay Pleaders Act 1920 against the pleader practising in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Mahuva in the district of Bhavnagar. The proceeding relates to alleged misconduct on three occasions in the course of a Darkhast proceeding in which the pleader was a party as a judgment-debtor. The three occasions are (1) his conduct in improperly obtaining adjournments prior to February 28 1962 (2) his improper conduct in the open Court on February 28 1962 when the learned Judge was trying the Darkhast and (3) his addressing a registered letter to the learned Judge containing certain allegations and insinuations.

(2.) Prior to February 1962 there were some suits and proceedings filed against the pleader by his creditors and others and pending in the Court at Mahuva. It was in fact his case that he did not resist most of these proceedings and used to settle them after one or two hearings. At the time of the alleged incident two Darkhasts Nos. 88 of 1961 and 19 of 1962 and a suit being suit No. 1 of 1962 were pending against him in the Court at Mahuva. The pleader was residing in the house belonging to one Bhanushanker in Mahuva. An agreement of sale in respect of this house had been entered into by the pleader with the said Bhanushanker and his brother. But as the pleader declined to carry out the agreement Bhanushanker filed a suit being suit No. 141 of 1956 for arrears of rent and possession. The claim for possession was dismissed but a decree for arrears of rent namely for Rs. 299/and proportionate costs of the suit was passed against the pleader. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for possession Bhanushanker filed an appeal being C. A. No. 52 of 1959 in the District Court at Bhavnagar. The parties arrived at a compromise in the appellate Court and thereupon Bhanushanker stated before the appellate Court that he did not wish to proceed with the appeal and thereupon the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. That happened on April 20 1962 Bhanushanker and his brother thereafter took out an execution application No. 38 of 1961 to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs. 299/costs and interest aggregating in all to Rs. 422-78 nP. As regards the compromise entered into by the parties the compromise provided that the pleader should purchase the said house for a sum of Rs. 5601/ that he should pay twenty-five per cent of the sale price in cash and as regards the balance he should execute a mortgage mortgaging the said house to Bhanushanker and his brother and pay interest at the rate of ten annas per cent per month. On the allegation that the pleader failed to carry out this agreement Bhanushanker and his brother filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Mahuva on January 2 1961 against the pleader being suit No. 1 of 1962 for specific performance and in the alternative for possession of the said house and mesne profits.

(3.) In execution application No. 88 of 1951 the pleader contended that when the compromise was arrived at in the appellate Court the decree passed by the lower Court was treated as cancelled and that therefore there was no question of his paying anything under that decree. Notice under Order 21 rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure was thereupon issued and after some adjournments the Darkhast was fixed for hearing on February 28 1962 It seems that the pleader had stated before the Court that he wanted to rely upon the terms of the said compromise and had obtained an adjournment from the learned Judge on the ground that he wanted to produce a certified copy of that compromise. Until February 28 1962 the pleader however did not care to produce the certified copy. The view taken by the learned Judge hearing the Darkhast was that as the pleader had not appealed against that part of the decree that is in respect of the arrears of rent and the appeal filed by Bhanushanker was only confined to the question of relief as to possession the said compromise related to the question of possession only and that though the appeal was dismissed on the ground of want of prosecution the dismissal of the appeal had nothing to do with that part of the decree under which the pleader was ordered to pay the arrears of rent costs and interest. As the pleader failed to produce the certified copy of the compromise at the instance of the judgment-creditor the learned Judge looked at the terms of the said compromise which were filed in the record of the said suit No. 1 of 1962 and the learned Judge ordered that the Darkhast should proceed and further ordered for the issue of warrant of attachment of movable property belonging to the pleader.