C. R. No. 2995 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2995 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 Kamal Nayan Bansal .... Petitioner Vs. Railway Claims Tribunal and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Petitioner Kamal Nayan Bansal, Advocate filed claim petition before Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short – the Tribunal) on behalf of Savitri Devi claimant, as her counsel. Documents were enclosed with the claim petition. After framing of issues, evidence of the claimant was closed by the petitioner herein without leading any evidence. After the respondents in the claim petition closed their evidence, the petitioner moved application on behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal for filing affidavit of the claimant as evidence. The said application has been allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P-10). While allowing the C. R. No. 2995 of 2010 2 said application, the Tribunal observed in the impugned order that the petitioner herein i.e. the counsel representing the claimant was negligent and careless in closing the evidence of the claimant after framing of issues without leading any evidence. In view of the said observation, the Tribunal has directed in the order that a copy of the order be sent to the Chairman, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh for information and necessary action against Shri Kamal Nayan Bansal, Advocate in view of his conduct mentioned in the order. Kamal Nayan Bansal, Advocate has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for expunction of finding of the Tribunal, whereby Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh has been asked to take action against the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was practice being followed in the Tribunal that documentary evidence would be sufficient and oral evidence, by way of affidavit, was not required and in view of said practice, the petitioner closed the evidence of the claimant without leading any oral evidence, whereas documents had been enclosed with the claim petition itself. However, later on, it is contended, practice of leading oral evidence on behalf of the claimant started in the Tribunal and therefore, application was moved to place on record affidavit of the claimant C. R. No. 2995 of 2010 3 as evidence. I have carefully considered the contention and perused the records. The only prayer made in the revision petition is that action of the Tribunal referring the matter to Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for taking action against the petitioner be expunged. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I find that the circumstances of the case do not make out a case of such professional misconduct on the part of the petitioner as to warrant action against him by Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and direction of the Tribunal given in the impugned order, that a copy of the order be sent to the Chairman, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh for information and necessary action against the petitioner herein, is set aside. May 07, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE