Dhanraj Singh Choudahry vs Nathulal Vishwakarma

2. On the complaint made by the respondent-Nathulal Vishwakarma against the advocate appellant to the Bar 2 Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. The allegation of professional mis-conduct against the advocate appellant is that in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 executed by Jitender Singh Bakna in favour of Smt. Suchi Gupta concerning sale of property House No. 423 situate in Nursing Ward, Jabalpur, which was attested by the advocate appellant, it has been stated that on the Western side of the saleable property one shop adjacent to Sahara lounge presently in occupation of the complainant has already been transferred by the vendor to the advocate appellant by giving him the ownership right, although vendor's father Sardar Desh Singh Bakna had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the complainant on November 15, 1991 and the vendor's father has already received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the sale consideration. The complainant alleged that he had already filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated November 15, 1991 which was pending and was within the knowledge of the advocate appellant. As a matter of fact, the advocate appellant had instituted a suit on behalf of Sardar 3 Desh Singh Bakna against the complainant for eviction of the said shop showing the complainant as a tenant of Sardar Desh Singh Bakna.

5. The complainant and the advocate appellant examined themselves and also tendered documents in support of their respective case. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence tendered by them, recorded its finding against the advocate appellant on the above issues and held the advocate appellant guilty of professional mis-conduct. Having adjudged the advocate appellant guilty of professional mis-conduct, the Disciplinary Committee, State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, awarded punishment of reprimand to the advocate appellant vide its order dated April 22, 2002.

6. Not satisfied with the order dated April 22, 2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee, State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, the complainant preferred appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, '1961 Act') to the Bar Council of India. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India issued notice to the advocate appellant on October 5, 2004 intimating him that the matter has been kept on October 30, 2004. On receipt of the notice, the advocate appellant appeared before the Disciplinary 5 Committee of the Bar Council of India, which heard the appeal preferred by the complainant for enhancement of the punishment on October 30, 2004. After the conclusion of the hearing of that appeal, an application was filed by the advocate appellant seeking permission to file cross-appeal and the cross- appeal was tendered.

7. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, vide its judgment dated October 31, 2004, allowed the appeal of the complainant; modified the punishment of reprimand awarded by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and ordered his suspension from practice for a period of one year from the date of communication of the order. By a separate order passed on that day, i.e., October 31, 2004, the cross-appeal preferred by the advocate appellant was dismissed.

14. There may not be any difficulty in treating the 'cross-appeal' preferred by the advocate appellant as an appeal under Section 37 of the 1961 Act, but then such appeal is hopelessly time barred. The order was passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council on April 22, 2002. The advocate appellant presented his appeal (titled 'cross-appeal') before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India on October 30, 2004, i.e., after more than two years. No application for condonation of delay has been made. In this view of the matter also the cross- appeal preferred by the advocate appellant was liable to be dismissed and has rightly been dismissed.

24. We find that the two applications, being Interlocutory Application No. 4 in Civil Appeal No. 4484 of 2005 and Interlocutor Application No. 8 in Civil Appeal No. 2293 of 2005, have been made by the advocate appellant and the complainant jointly for disposal of the Appeals in terms of the compromise between them. We are unable to accede to their request. In our view the settlement with the complainant does not mitigate or wipe out professional misconduct and must not prevent adequate punishment to the advocate appellant. Both these applications are, accordingly, rejected.

25. The punishment for professional misconduct has twin objectives - deterrence and correction. Having 15 regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case which have been noted above, we are of the view that if the advocate appellant is suspended from practice for a period of three months effective from today the above objectives would be met. We order accordingly.

26. Both Civil Appeals are dismissed with the modification in punishment as indicated above. No costs.

27. The Registry shall send copy of this Order to the Secretary, State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh and the Secretary, Bar Council of India immediately.