LAKHANLAL MISHRA Vs. KASHINATH DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal (No. 114 of 1956) and the counter appeal No. 128 of 1956 arise out of the same action. The present appellant Lakhanlal Mishra was the defendant and respondent Kashinath Dube, who is appellant in the counter appeal, was the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) Kashinath Dube is a practising lawyer in Raipur district. Lakhanlal Mishra on 11-11-1952 filed a complaint against him before the District Judge, Raipur, in which he made the following pertinent imputation: "On 25-10-1952, this Dubey Pleader called one Kartik Satnami an exsurveillee, to Raipur at his residence through R. C. Mishra and in the presence of Namdas Satnami tutored him to depose when required that I (L.L. Mishra) was the receiver of the stolen properties of certain house breaking and theft cases which he (Kartik Satnami) had committed before. Besides that he also tutored him to depose that he (Kartik) brought allegations of adultery against one Rambagas Kurmi as he was made to say under my influence. On return from Raipur Kartik Satnami has made a report on 26-10-1952 at the Police Station Kharora as to how he was being tutored by Kashinath Dubey, Pleader, in the above manner. A copy of the report matte at the Police Station is attached herewith. The conduct of Shri Kashinath Dubey is not befitting a pleader and an action under Section 13 of the Legal Practitioner's Act is called for." This complaint was forwarded to the High Court by the District Judge who was directed by it to hold an enquiry and submit a report. The District Judge, after enquiry, submitted a report to the High Court on 31-7-1953, holding that the complaint made against Kashinath Dubey was false. When the matter was heard by the High Court under Section 13 of the Legal Practitioner's Act, the Counsel for Lakhanlal Mishra admitted that the complaint was false. Accordingly the High Court dismissed the complaint and directed Lakhanlal Mishra to pay Rs. 150/- as costs to Kashinath Dubey.

(3.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by Kashinath Dubey against Lakhanlal Mishra for recovery of Rs. 6,000/- as damages, which consisted of Rs. 5,000/- as general damages and Rs. 1,000/- as special damages. His case was that Lakhanlal Mishra had made a false complaint against him to the District Judge, Raipur, knowing that the allegations wore false or that he had no reasonable or probable cause for believing them to be true. The defence of Lakhanlal Mishra was that the complaint contained true allegations or at any rate he believed them to be true. As regards damages his case was that Kashinath Dubey. had no reputation as a practising lawyer and consequently was not entitled to any damages, or at any rate not in excess of Rs. 200/-.