EMPEROR Vs. TARINI MOHAN BARARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a Referenda by the learned District Judge of Dacca, dated the 15 August 1921, with which he forwarded a report by the learned, Subordinate Judge of the 4 Court, of proceedings taken by him under Section 14, of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879,. against one Tarini Mohan Barari, a Pleader of that Court. The report of the learned

(2.) District Judge in material parts was as follows: The circumstances that have given rise to these proceedings are similar to those that were the occasion of proceedings against ten other Pleaders, regarding whom I have, this day, made a report, and I need not re-state them. It is sufficient to say that Tarini Mohan Barari has complied with the resolution paused by the Dac(sic)a Bar-Association on the 17 Jane last, asking its members not to appear as Pleaders before Babu Pasupati Base. "The defendant Pleader had presented a plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge which was found to be defective. The Pleader-was sailed to explain the circumstances, but he refused to appear before the Court. The Subordinate Judge accordingly ordered the plaint to be returned. The Pleader sent a telegram to his client to inform him of the order, and the latter having come to Dassa, instructed him to make a petition to the Court for a re consideration of the- order. The Pleader, however, refused to do so, and the plaintiff was compelled to appear in Court himself, and later on, by a Mukhtear, The plaintiff was sallad as a witness in the present pro seeding, and his evidence has bean discussed by the Subordinate Judge, It appears that he endeavoured to screen the Pleader and) go back on the first statement he made to the Subordinate Judge; bat there can be no doubt that his first statement was the true one. That his interests were prejudiced by the Pleader's refusal to appear on his behalf is evident from the fast that the plaint was ordered to be returned and he had to appear on his own behalf before the Subordinate Judge and, later on, by a Mukhtear. "I am of opinion, therefore, that the Subordinate Judge is right in his view that the Pleader, has been guilty of professional misconduct and should be punished with suspension.

(3.) The plaintiff's statement referred to in the report is as follows: I have some to Dacea on receipt of a telegram from my Pleader, Tarini Mohan Barari. I had seen him on arrival. Ha told me that the Court passed an order on my plaint directing its return. I asked him to appear before, the Court and move for a re-consideration of the order. He told me that as other Pleaders have not been appearing, he would not. I, therefore, throw myself entirely at the mercy of the Court. I asked him why he did not explain before the Court the state of things, why the suit was tribal before the Court, He answered that he and other Pleaders were determined not to appear in this Court. I have been put to Revere loss for his conduct.