NARINDER KUMAR SUNEJA Vs. R.K. GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the revision petitioner in person. This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments and orders of the Fora below. Revision petitioner is an Advocate who has argued his case with great enthusiasm before us. His main contention is that the complainant was his classmate during his academic career. He says in all fairness he has not issued receipt for the amount of Rs. 10,000 paid as legal fees by the complainant/respondent. Complainant/respondent had executed his power of attorney/Vakalatnama in his favour. Once he had signed the Vakalatnama he cannot ask the petitioner to cancel the same at his whims and fancies. The complainant has wasted his valuable time in connection with the case when the latter met and sought expert advice from the petitioner. In this connection, he submitted that there was no deficiency at all on the part of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel read para 8(i) of the appeal memorandum before the State Commission which reads as under:

(3.) IN this connection, it is worthwhile to go through para 4 of the judgment of the State Commission, which reads as follows: