o 3 of 1992
IN Civil Appeal No 732 of 1973
From the Judgment and Order dated 29979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ 734 of 1971
Satish Chandra Pramod B Agarwala and Mohinder Rupral for the Appellants
VR Reddy Additional Solicitor General P Chidambaram Syed Akhtar CL Sahu RC Bhalla P Parmeshwaran CVS Rao K Swamy and EC Agarwala for the Respondents
J Shri Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka was involved in several suits and one of which is the pending appeal at his behest
He died on November 25 1985 leaving behind last Will dated October 291982 said to have been executed in which he appointed his younger daughter Mrs Sushila N Rungta as sole executrix of his Will
Radhey Shyam claims to be the adopted son of Shri CS Goenka
Radhey Shyam is the natural son of Shri Mangal Chand Kedia and Mrs Sita another daughter of Sri CS Goenka
The applicant executrix Radhey Shyam and his wife filed substitution applications under order 22 Rule 3 CPC setting up rival claims
When the dispute arose as to who would represent the estate of Shri CS Goenka by order dated October 7 1991 this Court brought all the three on record as legal representatives
By further order dated November 1 1991 this Court passed the following order lm15  By consent of parties Justice VS Deshpande retired Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court is appointed as arbitrator to settle the dispute as to who would be the 459 legal heirs to the estate of the late Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka
 The rest of the order is not necessary for the purpose of this case hence omitted
Pursuant thereto Shri Justice VS Deshpande entered upon the arbitration
Preceding the order counsel for Sri Radhey Shyam had enclosed a letter giving details of all the pending suits and item No 19 Suit No 65 of 1985 titled SN Rungta vs R C Goenka was one such case
The schedule of the suits was annexed to the order of appointment of the arbitrator
On filing the respective pleadings the arbitrator framed diverse issues
Issues No 1 and 2 relate to two Wills and are as under 1 Does Claimant No1 prove execution of the Will dated 29th 28th October 1982 and prove the same to be the last and genuine Will of late Shri GS Goenka
If not does she prove the execution of the Will dated 471978and prove the same to be the last and genuine Will of the late Shri GS Goenka
Simultaneously proceedings in the probate suit is being pursued in Bombay High Court where in the learned Judge on application expressed doubt whether arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide probate suit
Similarly on application made before the arbitrator seeking clarification he too had stated that when the appointment of him as arbitrator was made and all the pending proceedings were referred to in the schedule it would be assumed that this Court applied its mind and referred to him the probate suit as well but he cannot give any clarification in that behalf
It would be expedient to the applicant to seek clarification from this Court
Thus the prayers in the application are  A That this Hon ble Court may be pleased to allow the applicant to proceed with the Probate Suit No 65 of 1987 pending before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in accordance with law and B to pass such order and other orders as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
Shri Satish Chandra learned Senior counsel for the applicant contended placing reliance on Gopi Rai vs BN Rai AIR 1930 Allahabad 840 460 Chellan Bhai vs Nandu Bhai ILR 21 Bombay 337 and Manmohini Guha vs Banga Chandra Das ILR that probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will to the applicant for due implementation of the directions contained in the Will as the executrix
That issue cannot be referred to arbitration and the arbitrator thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to decide issuses Nos1 and 2
He also further contended that the applicant had not consented to refer the probate suit for arbitration
Shri P Chidambaram learned Senior counsel for the respondents contended that preceding the order of this Court dated November 1 1991 the counsel for the respondents addressed a letter to the counsel for the petitioner including the probate suit for reference to arbitration
This was to obviate the litigation pending in all the courts as to who are the leg heirs of Shri CS Goenka
Thereafter this Court appointed Shri Justice SV Deshpande
The contention therefore of the applicant that she did not consent to refer the probate suit for arbitration is an after thought and cannot be accepted
He further contended that this Court with a view to put an end to the litigation in all the suits pending in different courts appointed the arbitrator to decide all the disputes in pending suits go that it would bind them
The arbitrator had accordingly framed Issues Nos 1 and 2 referred to herein before which pertinently relate to the Wills in  the probate suit alongwith other suits
Therefore the arbitrator alone has got jurisdiction
The award of the arbitrator would be subject to approval or disapproval by this Hon ble Court and on putting its seal it would bind all the parties and the courts including the probate court
Therefore it is expedient that instead of parallel proceedings before the probate court and the arbitrator to be permitted to continue it is desirable that the arbitrator should decide issues Nos1 and 2 with other issues and determine as to who would be the legal heirs and his decision would be binding in the probate suit
If any clarification is necessary it may be indicated accordingly
Having given our anxious consideration we will proceed further in deciding the scope and effect of the order passed by this Court
As seen the order of reference to the arbitrator relates to settle dispute as to who would be the legal heirs to the estate of Shri CS Goenka
Section 211 of CPC Act 5 of 1908 defines legal representatives means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representatives character the person on whom the estate 461 devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued
Order 22 rule 3 says that if one or two or more plaintiffs die and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiff  alone or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiffs dies and the right to sue survives the Court on an application made in this behalf shall cause the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit
Mutatis Mutandis by operation of Order 22 Rule 11 this rule applies to the appellants at the appeal stage
Similarly Order 22 Rule 4 applies in the case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant and in case of a dispute under Rule 5 such a question shall be determined by the court
Inheritance is in some sort a legal and fictitious continuation of the personality of the dead man for the presentation is in some sort identified by the law with him who he represents
The rights which the dead man can no longer own or exercise in propria persona and the obligations which he can no longer in propria person a fulfil he owns exercise and fulfils in the persons of a living substitute
To this extent and in this fiction it may be said that legal personality of a man survives his natural personality until his obligation being duty performed and his property duly disposed of his representation among the living is no longer called for
In Black s Law Dictionary the meaning of the world Legal Representative  is  The term is its broadest sense means one who stands in place of and represents the interests of another
A person who overseas the legal affairs of another
Examples include the executors or administrator of an estate and a court appointed guardian of a minor or incompetent person
Term Legal representative which is almost always held to be synonymous with term personal representative means in accident cases member of family entitled to benefits under Wrongful death statute
Unsatisfied claim and judgment fund
In The Andhra Bank Ltd vs R Srinivasan and Ors 1963 1 and
WRSC 14 this Court considered the question whether the legatee under the Will is the legal representative within the meaning of Section 211 of the Code
It was held that it is well known that the expression Legal Representative had not been defined in the Code of 1882 and that led to a difference of judicial opinion as to its denotation
Considering the case law developed in that behalf it was held that respondents 2 to 12 the legatees under the Will of the estate are legal 462 representatives of the deceased Raja Bahadur and so it follows that the estate of the deceased was sufficiently represented by them when the judgment were pronounced
In The Official Liquidator vs Parthasarathi Sinha and Ors  this Court considered whether the legal representative would be bound by the liability for misfeasance proceeding against the deceased
While considering that question under section 50 CPC this Court held that the legal representative of course would not be liable for any sum beyond the value of the estate of the deceased in his hands
Mulla on CPC 14th Ed Vol
I at P27 stated that a person on whom the estate of the deceased devolves would be his legal representative even if he is not in actual possession of the estate
It includes heirs and also persons who without title either as executors administrators were in possession of the estate of the deceased
It is therefore clear that the term legal representative is wide and inclusive of not only the heirs but also intermeddlers of the estate of the deceased as well as a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased
It is not necessarily confined to heirs alone
The executor administrators assigns or persons acquired interest by devolution under Order 22 Rule 10 or legatee under a Will are legal representatives
Section 3f of the defines heirs means any person male or female who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under this Act
Section 8 thereof provides that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter Chapter 11  Inestate succession firstly upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class 1 of the Schedule 
Schedule provides Class 1 heirs are Son daughter widow mother 
Thus under the personal law of  if a Hindu dies intestate the heirs either male or female specified in Schedule 1 Class 1 are heirs and succeed to the estate as per law
In  their absence the next class or classes are entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under the Act
In Sudama Devi and Ors
vs Jogendra Choudhary and Ors AIR
1987 Patna 239 Full Bench considered the question whether father of the minor in possession of his property and who himself was a party to the suit alongwith the minor is legal representative
The minor died
The father was held per majority to be legal representatives under section 211 of the Code as an intermeddler
It must therefore be held that not only that Class I heirs under Section 8 read with Schedule of the but also 463 the executor of the Will of the deceased Goenka are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 211 of the Code
Section 213 of the Act 39 of 1925 for short the Succession Act  provides right to the executor to obtain probate of the Will thus 1 No right as executor can be established in an Court of Justice unless court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed with a copy of the Will annexed
By operation of sub section 2i only in the case of wills made by any Hindu  where such wills are of the classes specified in Cls
a and b of Sec
Section 57 provides that the provisions of part which are set out in Schedule 111 shall subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein apply a to all wills made by any Hlndu on or after the first day of September 1870 within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and Bombay c to all wills and codicils made by any Hindu on or after the first day of January 1927 to which those provisions are not applied by Cls
a and b
In other places the Dist
Court or Court to whom the power is delegated alone are entitled to grant probate
Section 276 provides the procedure to obtain probate namely 1 application for probate  with the Will annexed shall be made by a distinctly written in English the will as the case may be the particulars are the details mentioned in  Clsa to  e and further details provided in sub sections 2 and 3 the mention of the details whereof are not material for the purpose of this case
The petition shall be verified in the manner prescribed under section 280 and also further to be verified by at least one of the witnesses to the will in the manner and to the affect specified therein
The Caveator is entitled to object to its grant by operation of Section 284 When it is contested Section 295 directs that probate proceedings shall take as nearly as may be the form of a regular suit according to the provisions of CPC and the petitioner for probate  shall be the plaintiff and the person who had appeared to oppose the 464 grant shall be the defendant
Section 217 expressly provides that save as otherwise provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force all grants or probate  with the will annexed  shall be made or carried out as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of Part IX
Section 222 declares that 1 Probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the will
2 The appointment may be expressed or by necessary implication Section 223 prohibits grant of probates to the persons specified therein
Section 224 gives power to appoint several executors
Section 227 declares the effect of probate thus Probate of a will when granted establishes the will from the
death of the testator and renders valid all intermediate acts of the executor as such
Section 248 envisages grant of probate for special purposes namely if an executor is appointed for any limited purpose specified in the will the probate shall be limited to that purpose and if he should appoint an attorney  with the will annexed shall be limited accordingly
Section 273 declares conclusiveness of probate thus  Probate shall have the effect over all the property and estate moveable or immovable of the deceased throughout the State in which the same is or are granted and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against the debtors of the deceased and all persons holding property which belongs to him and shall afford full indemnity to all debtors paying their debts and all persons delivering up such property to the person to whom such probate have been granted
The further details are not necessary for the purpose of this case
Under section 294 it shall be the duty of the court to preserve original Wills
Section 299 gives right of appeals against an order or the decree of the court of probate
By operation of Section 2111 the executor of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such
In Inswardeo Narain Singh vs Smt
Kanta Devi  Ors AIR 1954 SC 280 this court held that the court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind
The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the Probate Court
Therefore the only issue in a probate proceeding relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will and the court itself is under duty to determine it and preserve 465 the preserve the original Will in its custody
The Succession Act is a self contained code in so far as the question of making an application for probate grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the probate court
This is clearly manifested in the fasecule of the provision of Act
The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the probate court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways
The grant of probate with a copy of the Will annexed establishes con clusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the will
Thus it does no more than establish the factum of the will and the legal character of the executor
Probate court does not decide any question of title or of the existance of the property itself
The grant of a Probate by Court of competent jurisdiction is in the nature of a proceeding in rem
So long as the order remains in force it is conclusive as to the due execution and validity of the will unless it is duly revoked as per law
It binds not only upon all the parties made before the court but also upon all other persons in all proceedings arising out of the Will or claims under or connected therewith
The decision of the Probate Court therefore is the judgment in rem
The probate granted by the competent court is conclusive of the validity of the Will until it is revoked and no evidence can be admitted to impeach it except in a proceeding taken for revoking the probate
In Sheoparsan Singh vs Ramnandan Prasad Singh Cal 694 PC the judicial committee was to consider whether the Will which had been affirmed by a Court of competent jurisdiction would not be impugned in a court exercising original jurisdiction Civil Court in suit to declare the grant of probate illegal etc
The privy council held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to impugne the grant of probate by the court of competent jurisdiction
In that case the subordinate court of Muzafarbad was held to be had no jurisdiction to question the validity of the probate granted by the Calcutta High Court
In Narbheram Jivram vs Jevallabh Harjivan AIR 1933 Bombay 469 probate was granted by the High Court exercising probate jurisdiction
A civil suit on the Original Side was filed seeking apart from questioning the probate also other reliefs
The High Court held that when a probate was granted
 it operates upon the whole estate and establishes the Will from the death of the testator
Probate is conclusive evidence not only of the factum but also of the validity of the Will and after the probate has been granted in is incumbent on a person who wants to have the Will declared null and void to have the probate revoked before proceeding further
That could 466 be done only before the Probate Court and not on the original side of the High Court
When a request was made to transfer the suit to the Probate Court the learned Judge declined to grant the relief and stayed the proceeding on the original side
Thus it is conclusive that the court of probate alone had jurisdiction and is competent to grant probate to the will annexed to the petition in the manner prescribed under the Succession Act
That court alone is competent to deal with the probate proceedings and to grant or refuse probate of the annexed will
It should keep the original will in its custody
The probate thus granted is conclusive unless it is revoked
It is a judgment in rem
We agree with Mr Chidambaram that the applicant had consented to refer the dispute for arbitration of dispute in the pending probate proceedings but consent cannot confer jurisdiction nor an estoppel against statute
The other legatees in the will were not parties to it
In AR Antulay VI RS Naik  when a Constitution Bench directed the High Court Judge to try the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act with which the petitioner therein was charged and the trial was being proceeded with he questioned by way of writ petition the jurisdiction of this Court to give such a direction
A Bench of seven judges per majority construed meaning of the word jurisdiction  Mukerjee J as he then was speaking per himself
Oza and Natarajan JJ held that the power to create or enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in character
So also the power to confer a right of appeal or to take away a right of appeal
The Parliament alone can do it by law and not Court whether interior or both combine can enlarge the jurisdiction of a Court and divest a person of his rights of appeal or revision
Ranganath Misra J as he then was held that jurisdiction comes solely from the law of the land and cannot be exercised otherwise
In this country jurisdiction can be exercised only when provided for either in the Constitution or in the laws made by the Legislature
Jurisdiction is thus the authority or power of the Court to deal with a matter and make an order carrying binding force in the facts
Oza J supplementing the question held that the jurisdiction to try a case could only be conferred by law enacted by the legislature
The Supreme Court could not confer jurisdiction if it does not exist in law
Ray J held that the Court cannot confer a jurisdiction on itself which is not provided in the law
In the dissenting opinion Venkatachaliah J as he then was to lay down that the expression jurisdiction or prior determination is a verbal coat of many colours
In the case of a Tribunal an error of law might 467 become not merely an error in jurisdiction but might partake of the character of an error of jurisdiction
But otherwise jurisdiction is a legal shelter  and a power to bind despite a possible error in the decision
The existence of jurisdiction does not depend on the correctness of its exercise
The authority to decide embodies a privilege to bind despite error a privilege which is inherent in and indispensable to every judicial function
The characteristic attribute of a judicial act is that it binds whether it be right or it be wrong
Thus this Court laid down as an authoritative proposition of law that the jurisdiction could be conferred by statute and this Court cannot confer jurisdiction or an authority on a tribunal
In that case this Court held that Constitution Bench has no power to give direction contrary to Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952
The direction per majority was held to be void
It is settled law that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction on the subject matter or on the grounds on which the decree made which goes to the root to its jurisdiction of lacks inherent jurisdiction is a corum non judice
A decree passed by such a court in a nullity and is nonest
Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings
The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party
In Bahadur Singh  Anr
vs Muni Subrat Dass  Anr an eviction petition was filed under the Rent Control Act on the ground of nuisance
The dispute was referred to the arbitration
An award was made directing the tenant to run the workshop upto a specified time and thereafter to remove the machinery and to deliver vacant possession to the landlord
The award was signed by the arbitrators the tenant and the landlord
It was filed in the court
A judgment and decree were passed in terms of the award
On expiry of the time and when the tenant did not remove the machinery nor delivered vacant possession execution was levied under Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act
It was held that a decree passed in contravention of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act was void and the landlord could not execute the decree
The same view was reiterated in Smt
Kaushalya Devi and Ors
vs KL
Bansal AIR 1970 SC 838
In Ferozi Lal Jain vs Man Mal  Anr AIR 1979 SC 794 a compromise dehore grounds for eviction was arrived at between the parties under section 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act
A decree in terms thereof was passed
The possession was not delivered and execution was 468 laid
It was held that the decree was nullity and therefore the tenant could not be evicted
In Sushil Kumar Mehta vs Gobind Ram Bohra dead through his Lrs
JT 1989 SUPPI SC329 the Civil Court decreed eviction but the building was governed by Haryana Urban Control of Rent  Eviction Act 11 of 1973
It was held that the decree was without jurisdiction and its nullity can be raised in execution
In Union of India vs Ms Ajit Mehta and Associates
Pune and Ors
 AIR 1990 Bombay 45 a Division Bench to which Sawant J as he then was a member was to consider whether the validity of the award could be questioned on jurisdictional issue under section 30 of the Arbitration Act
The Division Bench held that Clause 70 of the Contract provided that the Chief Engineer shall appoint an engineer officer to be sole arbitrator and unless both
parties agree in writing such a reference shall not take place until after completion of the works or termination or determination of the Contract
Pursuant to this contract under section 8 of the Act an Arbitrator was appointed and award was made Its validity was questioned under section 30 thereof
The Division Bench considering the scope of Sections 8 and 204 of the Act and on review of the case law held that Section 8 cannot be invoked for appointment of an Arbitrator unilaterally but be available only
under section 204 of the Act
Therefore the very appointment of the Arbitrator without consent of both parties was held void being without jurisdiction
The Arbitrator so appointed inherently lacked jurisdiction and hence the award made by such Arbitrator is nonest
In Chellan Bhai s case Sir C Farran Kt
 CJ of Bombay High Court held that the Probate Court alone is to determine whether probate of an alleged will shall issue to the executor named in it and that the executor has no power to refer the question of execution of Will to arbitration
It was also held that the executor having propounded a Will and applied for probate a caveat was filed denying the execution of the alleged Will and the matter was duly registered as a suit the executor and the caveatrix subsequently cannot refer the dispute to arbitration signing a submission paper but such an award made pursuant thereto was held to be without jurisdiction
In Gopi Rai s case Sulaiman J as he then was speaking for the Division Bench held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to allow the dispute relating to the genuineness of a Will in a probate proceedings pending before him to be referred to the arbitration of an arbitrator
He has got to be specified that the Will is a genuine document before the order of granting probate is passed
He cannot delegate those functions to a 465 private individual and decide the point through him
Similar was the view laid in Manmohini Guha s case Sarda Kanta Das vs Gobinda Das 6 Indian
Cases 912 and Khelawati vs Chet
Ram Khub Rain AIR 1952 Punjab 67
When the plea of estoppel was raised Sulaiman
J in Gopi Rai s case held that We cannot hold that there is any estoppel against Gopi Rai on this question of jurisdiction
That is a matter which we can take into account only when ordering costs   The decision in Nalla Ramudamma vs Nalla Kasi Naidu AIR 1945 Madras 269 relied on by Shri Chidambaram does not help his clients
Therein the question was the matrimonial dispute
The Arbitrator had decided at the request of the parties and a decree was passed
It was held that the dispute would come under section 21 of the Arbitration Act
The question of jurisdiction was not raised therein
Equal ly the decision in Mt Mahasunader Kuer and Anr
vs Ram Ratan Prasad Sahi
is also of little assistance
The question of adoption it was held cannot be decided in the probate proceedings
On a conspectus of the above legal scenario we conclude that the Probate Court has been conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will of the deceased annexed to the petition suit on grant or refusal thereof it has to preserve the original Will produced before it
The grant of probate is final subject to appeal if any or revocation if made in terms of the provisions of the Succession Act
It is a judgment in rely and conclusive and binds not only the parties but also the entire world The award deprives the parties of statutory right of appeal provided under section 299
Thus the necessary conclusion is that the Probate Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction and the Civil Court on original side or the Arbitrator does not get jurisdiction even if consented to by the parties to adjudicate upon the proof or validity of the Will propounded by the executrix the applicant
It is already seen that the executrix was nominated expressly in the will is a legal representative entitled to represent the Estate of the deceased but the heirs cannot get any probate before the Probate Court
They are entitled only to resist the claim of the executrix of the execution and genuineness of the Will
The grant of probate gives the executrix the right to represent the estate of the deceased the subject matter in other proceedings
We make it clear that our exposition of law is only for the purpose of finding the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and not an expression of opinion on merits in the probate suit
From this perspective we are constrained to conclude that the Ar
470 bitrator cannot proceed with the probate suit to decide the dispute in issues Nos1 and 2 framed by him
Under these circumstances the only course open in the case is that the High Court is requested to proceed with the probate suit No6585 pending on the probate jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay and decide the same as expeditiously as possible
The learned Judge is requested to fix the date and proceed day to day at his convenience till it is concluded and decide the matter according to law preferably within six months
Till then the Arbitrator is requested not to decide issue Nos1 and 2
He may be at liberty to proceed with the other issues
He is requested to await the decision of the Probate Court depending upon the result thereon he would conclude his findings on Issues Nos1 and 2 and then make the award and take the proceedings according to law
The application is accordingly ordered but without cost
NVK Application disposed of


Summary:
Respondent Bank lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi against the appellant Advocate alleging that the appellant and two other Advocates of the Ms Singh and Company a Firm of Advocates and solicitors were guilty of serious professional misconduct as they failed to discharge theirprofessional duties and responsibilities entrusted to them
The case of the Bank was that in 1975 the Bank engaged the Firm to rile a recovery suit for the recovery of Rs 61216410 from Ms Delhi Flooring P Ltd and handed over the case rile containing original and valuable documents
The Firm submitted a bill for riling the recovery suit which included the professional fees and other miscellaneous charges
On 15111975 the Bank paid a sum of Rs 11475 which included 13rd of the professional fee and the miscellaneous charges
It did not inform the Bank whether the suit was filed or not
On 5121975 the Bank wrote a letter to the Firm to send a copy of the plaint before 8121975 or the Bank would be compelled to withdraw the case from the Firm
On 15121975 one of the partner of the firm informed the Bank the suit was filed on 15121975 in the High Court
Thereafter the Bank was kept in the dark about the fate of the case
Hence the Bank engaged the services of one Mr Arora Advocate in order to find out as to what happened to the suit
On 231977 the Bank was informed by Mr Arora Advocate that 489 suit was filed on 15121975 in the High Court and on 3111976 it was returned by the Original Branch to the Registry with objections
Mr Arora Advocate further informed the Bank on 3131977 that the entire suit paper book was returned to Mr Singh Advocate of the Firm on 2771976 for removing the object ions and thereafter the suit was not refiled
The respondent Bank therefore claimed before the Bar Council of Delhi that the appellant and his associates misappropriated the money paid to them for court fee miscellaneous expenses and one third of the professional fee
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred the case of the Bar Council of India as the case was pending for more than one year
The Bar Council of India issued notices returnable on 2111980
The appellant and his associates were not present on that date
Therefore fresh notices were issued for 20121980
The appellant did not present on 20121980and ex parte proceedings were ordered
The case was posted for 2311981 for the evidence of the complainant
On 2311981 the appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 20121980 which was allowed and the case was adjourned to 2721981
The case was adjourned from time to time and finally fixed for evidence on 2281981
On 2281981 the appellant s application for adjournment was rejected
The evidence was concluded ar guments were heard and the order was reserved
The complainant had given up its case against one Ms VSingh Advocate an associate of the appellant and the Bar Council of India did not proceed against her
One Mr BSingh Advocate the other associate of the appellant was also proceeded against
Notice to him was returned with the postal endorsement refused and ex parte proceeding were ordered The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that the case against the appellant and his associate was proved beyond reasonable doubt
Their names were removed from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi and the Sanads granted to them were ordered to be withdrawn
490 The appellant riled the appeal before this Court while his associate riled a review petition before the Bar Council of India which was still pending
The Bar Council of India granted him stay of the order dated 24101981 in the review proceeding
The appellant contended that the suit was filed by the appellant on 151211975 but the record of the suit file was misplacedlost by the Registry of the High Court that by his letter dated 2081977 he informed the Bank about the suit rile being not traceable and that the record of the suit was to be structured and refiled
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD  101
The letter dated August 201977 was not produced before the Bar Council of India
It has been placed before this Court for the first time
Apart from the ipse dixit of the appellant and Mr
BSingh in the said letter there is no evidence on the record to show that the suit rile was misplaced or lost by the High Court Registry
On the other hand there is cogent and reliable evidence on the record to shows that the Delhi High Court Registry returned back the papers to Mr B Singh for removing the objections raised by it
494D E 102
Both the reports of MrRPArora Advocate have been proved on the record of the Bar Council of India as evidence
The Bar Council of India on appreciation of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant and Mr
BSingh was proved beyond doubt
There is no ground to interfere with the order of the Bar Council of India
495H 496D