IN RE: A PLEADER, GUDIVADA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant and the respondent are pleaders practising at Gudivada. Last year the complainant was appointed by the District Munsiff of Gudivada to fulfil the duties of a Commissioner in giving to a client of the respondent delivery of land which she had purchased at a Court auction. She had previously attempted to get possession, but she had been obstructed. It is common ground that the complainant, the decree -holder and the respondent's clerk went to the property on the 13th February, 1945, in order that the complainant might deliver the land to the decree -ho'der. According to the respondent delivery was given by the complainant to the client and a receipt was signed by her in acknowledgment. On the 16th February, 1943, that is, three days later, the complainant reported to the District Munsiff that he could not give delivery of the property because the decree -holder was not able to point out the boundaries. On the 19th February 1945, the decree -holder swore an affidavit drafted by the respondent in which she alleged that delivery had in fact been given to her, but that the Commissioner had colluded with the judgment -debtor as the result of which he had suppressed the receipt given by her and had filed a false report. In the affidavit it was stated that the complainant had filed a false report with the intention of obtaining wrongful gain, which meant that he had been paid by the judgment -debtor. The matter was inquired into by the District Munsiff who held that the charges against the complainant were false. This resulted in the following charges of professional misconduct being framed against the respondent:

(2.) IN Thangavelu Mudaliar v. : (1935)69MLJ250 , this Court pointed out that although an advocate has his duty towards his client, he has other duties and responsibilities as well. He should not on the instructions of his client make a charge of fraud without satisfying himself that there are reasonable grounds for the allegation. That principle is well settled.

(3.) IN these circumstances we think that the respondent was justified in drafting; and filing the affidavit complained of. He has not got to satisfy himself that the statements made by his client were absolutely true. All that was incumbent on him was to satisfy himself that there were reasonable grounds for believing them to be true. It follows from what we have said that we consider that there were reasonable grounds for this belief. In these circumstances we are unable to agree with the District Munsiff that the respondent acted recklessly or with undue credulity.