STATE Vs. MAHENDRANATH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT will be convenient to take up both the cases together. They were heard together as they aross out of the same incident. This Judgment of ours should cover both the cases which arise out of proceedings under the provisions of the legal Practitioners Act, 1379 for the professional misconduct of two lawyers who usually practise in the Munsiff's Court at Jajpur. The circumstances giving rise to the cases are as follows:

(2.) IN Execution Case No. 97 of 1953 of the Munsiff of Jajpur Durjyodhan Pati was the decree-holder and Muralidhar Kar was the judgment-debtor. Sri Mahendranath dutta and Sri Narendranth Sen, Pleaders of the Munsif Court at Jaipur, represented the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor respectively. The decretal amount was to be paid in four instalments. The three previous instalments having been paid in time, the fourth was payable on 14-11-1954. There being a default, the sale in execution of the decree took place on 15-111954 which covered the homestead of the Judgment-debtor including other immovable properties. The execution cas3 was posted to 16-12-1954 for confirmation of sale. But however on 14-12-1954 a petition certifying payment of the entire dues of the decree-holder and the compensation money in all amounting to Rs. 36/8/- was riled and the petition contained a prayer for setting aside the sale. The petition was signed by Sri Dutta after the endorsement that he received the amount mentioned in the petition. Accordingly the sale was set aside and the execution case was dismissed on full satisfaction on 16-12-1954. But the decree-holder not having received the amount approached his lawyer Sri Dutta for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 36/8/ -. Sri Dutta however explained to the decree-holder that he had not received the amount from Sri Sen, representing the judgment debtor, but had signed the petition implicitly confiding in Sri Sen that he (the latter) would pay up the amount that day to him. He therefore asked the decree-holder to approach Sri Sen to receive his dues. The decree-holder approached Sri Sen on two or three occasions and met with sheer disappointment. The decree-holder having failed in all his attempts to receive his dues in spite of his repeated approaches to both the lawyers (Sri Dutta and Sri Sen had sent a petition to this Court on 17-1-1955. On that very day, however, the decree-holder received the amount after despatching the petition to the High Court from Sri Sen, and, therefore, in his petition dated 18-1-1955 he informed this Court about the payment and prayed for dropping up of the proceedings under the Legal practitioners Act.

(3.) BUT however an inquiry was made against Sri Dutta, under the direction of this court, by the District Judge of Cuttack, and the District Judge filed a report to this court making an observation that Sri Dutta did not in fact misappropriate the amount which was never received by him either from the judgment-debtor or his pleader; but nevertheless Sri Dutta was negligent in his professional duty. Thereafter on the basis of a letter dated 8-7-1955 of the Registrar of this Court, proceedings were also started against Sri Sen as in the inquiry against Sri Dutta it transpired that Sri Dutta had never received the amount and the amount was really left with Sri Sen who had not only misappropriated the amount but had duped his colleague. 3a. It will be pertinent to give the cases of the two pleaders at this stage. According to Sri Dutta, he had never received the amount either from tne judgment-debtor or from Sri Sen; the decree-holder was absent on 14-12-1954; sri Dutta was busy in the Criminal Court; and during the short time that he had come to the Civil Court he had signed this petition of satisfaction having full reliance on Sri Sen, who was his student in the early days of his life and is his colleague in the Bar for a long time and who represented that the money would be paid soon; he thereafter left for the Criminal Court requesting Sri Sen to pay the amount to the moharir and directed the moharir to keep the money till decree-holder would come and take the money; when he returned from the Criminal court he did not find either his clerk or Sri Sen; he knew for the first time that the decree-holder had not been paid up his dues 2 or 3 days after the receipt was filed, when the decree-holder approached him and demanded the money he explained the situation to the decree-holder that he had not actually received the money from Sri Sen who had promised to pay the money soon. He therefore directed his client to Sri Sen to receive his dues on several occasions. (3b) The case of Sri Sen is to the effect that In fact the judgment-debtor had not paid the instalment in time; the valuable property consisting of his homestead was sold off in a Court sale at a low price; that thereafter on 14-12-1954 the entire amount including the compensation was paid to Sri Dutta on which he signed the petition of satisfaction for setting aside the sale; that he had not retained any money of his client and therefore is not guilty of any misconduct whatsoever; that subsequently sri Dutta made a demand of Mitheikhia (an illegal amount to be paid by the judgment-debtor) as he (Sri Dutta) was brought to task by the decree-holder for having signed the petition of Satisfaction.