PURNA CHANDRA DAS Vs. PAGILI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 29.11.2004 passed in C.S. No. 653 of 2004 -I in Permanent Lok Adalat by the Registrar Civil Courts, Balasore. The facts leading to the present writ application are as follows: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 there is a bar under Section 22 -E(4) to file a suit. Hence the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that in view of prohibition made under Rule 21 and 22 of the Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') made under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act regarding the standard of professional conduct and etiquette the purchase of properties by the opposite party No. 4 is illegal, hence interference of the order is warranted. In support of his contention he has cited the decisions reported in : AIR 1998 SC 283, : AIR 1997 SC 879, : (1998) 9 SCC 169, : (2008) 2 SCC 660, : (2007) 7 SCC 482.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 supported the plea of the petitioner and submitted that their L.T.I., was taken for sale of the ancestral property and they have not received any consideration. However it was not disclosed that a suit for partition was filed and they are not aware about all those transactions being pardanishin ladies.