GOVERNMENT PLEADER Vs. BHAGUBHAI DAYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case in which Mr. Bhagubhai Dayabhai, a pleader of the Surat Courts, is charged with misbehaviour and neglect of duty within the meaning of those terms as used in Section 56 of Bombay Regulation II of 1837.

(2.) A good deal of argument in the case has been based on the supposed analogy of pleaders and barristers and the supposed resemblance between general retainers in the case of barristers and the retainer described in the second clause of Section 50 of that Regulation. It seems to me that the analogy is false and the resemblance is unreal. By the custom of the mofussil a pleader employed by a party to a proceeding before a Court is bound faithfully and exclusively to serve that party throughout the whole proceeding. This practice is based on, and we think, implied in, the words of Section 50, Clause 3 and Section 53, Clause 3, of the Regulation. The pleader in the mofussil is not merely an advocate--he is the confidential legal adviser of his client and does for him those things which in the Presidency towns are often done by solicitors. For legal advice, for the prosecution of legal proceedings in all their stages, the client depends on the pleader.

(3.) This dependence makes the position of the pleader peculiarly onerous and binds him to give exclusive attention to the interests of the client throughout any proceeding in which he is engaged.