CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji, an Advocate of this Court has filed C.W.J.C. No. 5942 of 1989 while his clients Janardan Prasad Roy and Kamla Roy have filed C.W.J.C. No. 5338 of 1989 challenging the order dated 26-4-1989 passed by the learned IVth Subordinate Judge, Patna, in Partition Suit No. 105/ 1984 allowing the petition of respondent No. 3 by cancelling the Vakalatnama of the Advocate petitioner and debarring him from conducting the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs (petitioners). Both these writ petitions arise out of the same order. So with the agreement of the learned counsel the parties are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) A partition suit No. 105/84 has been filed by Janardan Pd. Roy and Kamla Roy in respect of certain properties said to have been left by Kailash Roy, Smt Phuleshwari Devi is defendant No. 33 in the suit. The Schedule-11 of the plaint relates to a house with land bearing Municipal Survey plot No. 611 and 664 Circle No. 20/B Ward Nos. 19, Holding No. 108/ 193 measuring 9 kathas 7 dhurs at Mohalla Nala Road, Kadamkuan, Patna. It is said in the plaint that the land was purchased in the year 1955 out of the funds supplied by Tulsi Roy and from joint family fund as well as contribution made by other family members the house was constructed. This contention of the plaintiff has been fully supported in the written statement filed by defendant No.33. On this basis the two plaintiffs have claimed unity of title and possession between the parties in respect of the said house and land. There is another suit No. 202/ 84 filed by defendant No. 1 (of the title suit No. 105/84) for declaration of his title and eviction of the defendant (who are plaintiffs in suit No. 105 / 84) from the portion of the house bearing holding No. 108B (which also is the subject matter of the suit in T.S. No. 105 / 84). The mother defendant No. 33 of the suit No. 105/ 84 is also defendant No. 2 in T. S. No. 202/84 and she too has filed written statement making the same averments as said in the plaint of T.S. No. 105/ 84. Both the suits being analogous are being tried by the same Court below.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 in T.S. No. 105/ 84 has produced the photostat copies of the affidavits of Smt. Phuleshwari Devi dated 7-7-79, the originals of which are also on the record of the Court below after being called for. These affidavits contain identification made by this petitioner-Advocate. In those affidavits Smt. Phuleshwari Devi has stated that neither she nor her husband holds any land and house in the urban area of Patna on 7-7-79. Defendant No. 1 has, therefore, on the basis of these affidavits, urged that the whole case of plaintiffs and defendant No. 33 (T.S. No. 105/84) is demolished. The defendant No. 1 also filed petition calling for the original of the aforesaid affidavits of defendant No. 33. In the rejoinder affidavit, which was signed by Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Advocate petitioner, it has been alleged that the above mentioned documents are manufactured and are not genuine documents. At the same time, the petitioner-Advocate also supported at the bar the said averments made in the rejoinder affidavit. While arguing the case he also did not deny the fact that he had identified Smt. Phuleshwari Devi on the aforesaid affidavits dated 7-7-1979. On these matters, it was said by the defendant (T.S. No. 105/ 84) and plaintiff in T.S. No. 202/ 84, that the petitioner Advocate was a material witness to prove or disprove the genuineness or otherwise of the aforesaid affidavits. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has passed the impugned order.