BIHAR SANSKRIT SIKSHA BOARD Vs. RAVINDRA GRIYAGHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 185 of 1995/235 of 1997. The plaintiff No. 1 was the erstwhile Advocate of the defendant, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board in the suit, and the appellant before us. The other plaintiffs are Junior Advocates, who then worked with the plaintiff No 1. The claim in the suit was for fees not paid for the work done. As it would be evident from the schedules to the plaint, such claim was mainly on account of consultancy fees not paid. In addition to that certain insignificant claims had been put forward on account of fees for appearance not paid and for costs incurred on behalf of the Board. The Board contested the suit by filing written statement and thereby denied the claims of the plaintiffs. The vakalatnama filed by the Board suggested that the Board had engaged Smt. Sheema Ali Khan, then an Advocate and now an Hon ble Judge of this Court, as the Advocate for the Board in connection with the said suit. The suit was decreed, when Smt. Sheema Ali Khan did not appear on behalf of the Board to defend the same, instead one Anwar Ali, an Advocate appeared on behalf of the Board to defend the suit. Anwar Ali, under his signature, applied to the Court for issuance of Dasti summons against the Secretary and the Law Officer of the Board for compelling them to appear and depose on behalf of the Board in defence to the suit. Anwar Ali, two days ' later, informed the Court that no one will appear on behalf of the defendants to defend the suit and, accordingly, the suit was decreed on the basis of evidence as was brought On record by the plaintiffs in the suit.

(2.) AFTER the suit was decreed, plaintiffs put the same on execution and the Executing Court directed attachment of the bank account of the Board and in terms thereof, on 7th of December, 1997, the bank account of the Board was attached. According to the Board only upon ' attachment of its bank account, it came to learn about the decree and, accordingly, on 8th of December, 1997, applied for a certified copy thereof and obtained the same on 10th of December, 1997. On 18th December, 1997, the Board filed First Appeal No. 607 of -1997 before this Court assailing the judgment and decree in the said Title Suit. Subsequent thereto on 6th January, 1998, Board filed an application for condonation of delay. In opposition to the said application for condonation of delay, the plaintiffs in the suit, disclosed in their counter affidavit, that in fact the Board had applied for a certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in the said suit or 22nd September, 1997 and obtained the same on 10th of November, 1997 and, accordingly, it was contended that the Board, has, in the application for condonation of delay, suppressed material facts. This assertion was made on the basis of the certified copy of the application for certified copy of the decree, as was filed by Anwar Ali on 22nd September, 1997, obtained by the plaintiffs on 18th November, 1997.

(3.) IT is true that somebody has put in a signature purporting to be of Anwar Ali in the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the Board in the Title Suit granting power to Smt. Sheema Ali Khan. That, therefore, suggests that the person so signed as Anwar Ali in the said vakalatnama had been engaged by the Board. At the same time, the self same person filed a petition for Dasti summon to summon the representatives of his own client including the Secretary to the Board, who according to the vakalatnama engaged him, for the purpose of giving evidence. This conduct is stupendous. Therefore, we wanted to see this person. Inasmuch as according to Board, this person does not exist, so we requested the learned lawyer for the plaintiffs in the suit to produce this person before us or to give us some information about him so that we could locate him. We thought that when a lawyer has defended a suit against the plaintiffs, for a number of days before the trial Court, it would be very easy for the plaintiffs, who are also lawyers, to locate this person quickly and bring him before us or supply some valuable information about him, but the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted before us that he is not in a position to produce that person before us or to supply any information about him. We, therefore, conclude that there is no existence of an Advocate by the name Anwar Ali, whose signature tallies with the signature as that of Anwar Ali appearing in the said vakalatnama.