STATE Vs. NRUSINGHA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the District Judge of Cuttack, under Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act, against the opposite party, Nrusingh Naik, a pleader practising at Jajpur. The proceedings Were started on the complaint of one Gajindra Das who had engaged the pleader for executing a small cause court decree obtained by him against Chintamoni Dora. The complainant, Gajindra Das, alleged that one Sukhadeb samal, the registered clerk of a pleader named Mukund Charan Panda, realised Rs. 35/-from the judgment debtor and misappropriated the same. He further complained that he engaged the opposite party Nrusingh Naik to execute his decree and that in the course of the execution the pleader had realised Rs. 9/-, but suppressed the payment made by the judgment-debtor from him (the decree-holder) and appropriated the same. The complainant then made enquiries and came to know that the pleader had actually received Rs. 9/- in the course of execution. He made a complaint to the Bar Association, and thereafter reported the matter to the Munsif, but no action having been taken by the Munsif a petition was sent to this court on 18-1-1954, whereupon an enquiry was started. During the enquiry the pleader paid up the sum of Rs. 9/- to the complainant and produced a receipt dated 30-8-1954. When notice of the enquiry was served upon the complainant a petition dated 17-9-1954 was sent by the complainant to the Court pleading inability to attend the enquiry and praying that the proceedings !be dropped.

(2.) The learned District Judge held that the pleader, Nrusingh Naik "should not have behaved with his client in the way he had done" but as he had tendered an apology, he recommended that the proceedings may be dropped.

(3.) The plea taken by the opposite party is that he filed two execution petitions on behalf of the complainant-decree-holder, in Execution cases Nps. 188 of 1952 and 186 of 1953, and that he received Rs. 9/- on behalf of the decree-holder in the earlier Execution case No, 188 of 1952. He retained this amount as the decree- holder had agreed that he would adjust it towards his fees. He further says that he offered the amount to Gajindra Das in August or September 1953, but the decree- holder went away without making any adjustment towards his fee. He also expressed regret and tendered an apology and pleaded "good faith' in having retained the amount.