BHOLIRAM Vs. GHANSHYAM SINGH BHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint of professional misconduct against Shri Ghan Shyam Singh Bhati, a pleader practising in the courts at Udaipur. By our order dated the 9th July, 1963, the complaint was sent to the District Judge, Udaipur, for inquiry and report. THIS report has been received, and the learned enquiry judge is of the opinion that a case of professional misconduct against the respondent is established beyond all reasonable doubt, and, therefore, he has proposed that Shri Bhati be suspended from practice for a period of six months.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this complaint may shortly be stated as follows. THE petitioner Bholiram had filed a civil suit No. 342 of 1959 in the court of Munsiff Rajsamand, which was dismissed by that court on the 31st May, 1961. In connection with filing an appeal against that judgment and decree, the petitioner's case is that he had, on the 10th July, 1961, engaged Shri Bhati and had agreed to pay him a fee of Rs. 40/- for filing and conducting the appeal and paid him that amount immediately His further case is that Shri Bhati had told him that a sum of Rs. 37/- odd would be required in connection with the expenses of the appeal and the details of which had been jotted down by the latter on a piece of paper Ex. 3, and as the petitioner could not pay this amount then and there, he sent Rs. 35/- to Shri Bhati by a money-order on the 19th July, 1961. It is then alleged that Shri Bhati had on enquiry informed one Jeevraj, a relation of the petitioner, that the appeal had been fixed for hearing for the 12th December, 1961, on which date the petitioner went to Udaipur, but Shri Bhati told him that the case had been adjourned to the 12th February, 1962. On the last-mentioned date, the petitioner again went to Udaipur, but Shri Bhati was not there, and so it was not possible to find out what had happened to the appeal. THE petitioner again inquired through the aforesaid Jeevraj from Shri Bhati as to which was the next date for the hearing of the appeal, and as a result of the inquiries then made, Shri Bhati informed Jeevraj that the appeal had been dismissed on the 12th February, 1962. THEreupon the petitioner personally contacted Shri Bhati who affirmed that the appeal had been dismissed on the 12th February, 1962. THE petitioner insisted that a copy of the order dismissing the appeal should be obtained whereupon Shri Bhati was compelled to disclose the true position and then he told him (petitioner) that the appeal had never been filed. THE case of the petitioner further is that thereafter Shri Bhati returned the file to the former but the amounts paid to him by way of fees and expenses had been retained by him. It is on these facts and circumstances that the petitioner submitted that the conduct of Shri Bhati in not filing the appeal and retaining the monies paid by him to the latter amounted to grave professional misconduct and prayed that suitable punishment be meted out to him.