PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. JAYESH FABRICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the order dated 18.7.94 of the State Commission, Rajas-than at Jaipur dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner herein as barred by limitation. The District Forum, Jodhpur had allowed the complaint and directed the first Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant an additional amount of interest at the rate of 5% per annum on Advance Booking Amount of Rs. 11,000/- (already refunded with interest @ 7% per annum on 7.9.93) from 20.9.85 to 7.9.93.

(2.) MR . Lalit Bhasin, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner after some arguments on the findings of the State Commission on the question of limitation, confirmed his challenge to the direction in the impugned order of sending a copy of the order to the Chairman, Bar Council, Delhi to take action against Shri Viplav Sharma, Advocate for his misconduct. It is urged that the State Commission had gone beyond its jurisdiction in passing the order without any material or evidence on record on the question of alleged collusion and fabrication/destruction of documents by the Counsel to explain his version in the matter . It is also brought to our notice that an application on behalf of the said Counsel was made before that state Commission praying for the recall of the adverse observations and directions to the Bar Council. The Counsel for the Complainant had recorded on the application their no objection for the expunging of the remarks and direction. That application was dismissed by the State Commission on 30.8.94.

(3.) THE foundation of the adverse observations is the endorsement dated 1.3.94 by the then Registrar of the State Commission on the back of the application moved by Mr. Viplav Sharma, Advocate to the effect "The appeal is said to have been presented on 24.12.93. Process and report on 3.3.94". According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner herein, Mr. Viplav Sharma visited Jaipur to mention the appeal and stay application for urgent listing and when the Registrar enquired about the date of filing of the appeal, on information by the local dealer of the Petitioner at Jaipur who had filed the appeal, Shri Sharma gave that date. Certain strictures have been passed by the State Commission on the conduct of the officials of the State Commission, but there is no material on record, according to Counsel, to come to the conclusion that those officials had acted in collusion with the Advocate for the Petitioner. This submission is well founded.