SHARIFAN Vs. RASHID AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceeding relates to an application filed by Mst. Sharifan and one Kazi Mohammad Bux, both residents of Nagaur, against Shri Rashid Ahmad, a pleader practising in the courts at Nagaur. THE application was presented under sec. 13 of the Legal Practitioners' Act on the 5th of January, 1956 and it was alleged that for reasons mentioned therein the pleader was not a fit person to be allowed to practise and action should, therefore, be taken against him under the Act. On receipt of the petition, this Court issued notice on Shri Rashid Ahmad, who submitted his reply. Under order dated 24th August 1955 the Court considered that there was a prima facie case made out against Shri Rashid Ahmad and accordingly issued notice on him to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed from practice. By the order in question, the Court also framed four charges against the said pleader. THEy are as follows: - (1) That you, white appearing as pleader for Mst. Sharifan, wrongly introduced into the objection filed by her under O. XXI R. 58 a sentence to the effect that Ghulam Mohammad had been kept in the attached house by Mst. Sharifan. This you did in order to benefit Ghulam Mohammad for whom you had appeared previously as pleader. (2) That you were a tenant of Mst. Sharifan, and knew that she was the owner of the attached house, and in spite of this knowledge when you appeared as a witness for her in her objection under O. XXI, R. 58, you made a statement damaging to her case by wrongly stating that the 'attached house was in the possession of Ghulam Mohammad. (3) That you have been giving out falsely that you are an advocate of this Court, though in fact you are only a pleader, and that in particular you did so in your statement in the court of Munsif Nagaur on the 13th September, 1952, in the objection case under O. XXI, R. 58, and also before the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property, Ajmer, on the 28th of February, 1955. (4 ). That in 1945-46 you obtained a certificate for yourself as a bona fide Marwari resident from the District Judge, Jodhpur, on the basis of false statements, and by concealing from him that you were a pleader enrolled in the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, and practising there on the basis of a certificate that you were a bona fide resident of Ajmer.

(2.) THE Court directed that the charges should be enquired into by the District Judge of Merta, who should submit his report thereon. THE learned District Judge, in pursuance of the said order, has submitted a very elaborate report. On all the charges framed, he has found against Shri Rashid Ahmad and has recommended that punishment should be imposed upon him under sec. 13 of the Legal Practitioner's Act. We have had the advantage of examining the evidence on record and have read the report of the learned Judge with much interest and care. We fed satisfied that there is no justification for taking any action against Shri Rashid Ahmad on any of the charges framed against him and we do not think that the findings of the learned District Judge, as given in his report, are sustainable. I regret to have to observe that the learned District Judge appears to have proceeded on ex facie reasoning and apriority assumptions without fully scrutinising the relevant evidence led by the parties.