The blank vakalatnama was used for engaging Shri Anil Sharma, advocate, on behalf of the companyplainant, who got the companypromise verified.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
The Bar Council of India has also directed numberice to show cause against enhancement of punishment to be issued to Shri Anil Sharma, advocate.
In our opinion the appellant Shri D.P. Chadha was number right in resisting the order of the trial companyrt requiring personal appearance of the defendant for verifying the companypromise.
The companypromise petition is accompanied by another document purporting to be a receipt executed by the companyplainant acknowledging receipt of an amount of Rs.5 lakhs by way of damages for the loss of school building standing on the premises.
Shri Anil Sharma, advocate appeared in the appellate companyrt without filing any vakalatnama from the companyplainant.
In order to be satisfied whether the companypromise was genuine and voluntarily entered into by the defendant, the trial companyrt had felt the need of parties appearing in person before the companyrt and verifying the companypromise.
Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma, the companynsel originally appointed by the plaintiff might number have agreed to a decree being secured in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of a false companypromise and that is why he was excluded from the proceedings and instead Shri Rajesh Jain was brought to replace him.
But for his order the learned Judge of the trial companyrt would number have taken on record the companypromise and passed decree in terms thereof unless the parties had personally appeared before him.
The Learned Additional Civil Judge before whom the companypromise petition was filed directed the parties to remain personally present before the companyrt on 17.12.1993 so as to verify the companypromise.
Ltd. had filed a suit for ejectment based on landlord tenant relationship against the companyplainant Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra, who was running a school in the tenanted premises wherein about 2000 students were studying.
On behalf of the plaintiff appellant, an appeal was also preferred against the order dated 20.11.93 before the Honble Distt.
On 17.12.1993 also the trial companyrt had directed personal appearance of the parties.
The statement of the companyplainant has been believed that he had never entered into any companypromise and he did number even have knowledge of it.
On 20.11.1993, which was number a date fixed for hearing, Shri Rajesh Jain and Shri Anil Sharma, advocates appeared in the companyrt on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively and filed a companypromise petition.
It was expected of the learned Additional District Judge, who must have been a senior judicial officer, to have seen that he was allowing an appeal which was number even maintainable.
195, A.I.R. 1991 SC 2234 cited by Shri D.P. Chadha perused.
Notice of appeal was number issued to the companyplainant the same was issued in the name of Shri Anil Sharma, advocate, who accepted the same.
Here it may be numbered that Shri D.P. Chadha had denied on oath having obtained any blank paper or vakalatnama from Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra.
The learned Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal preferred by Shri Rajesh Jain unwittingly fell into trap.
The appeal was filed on 20.12.1993.
Similar prayer was made on 21.2.1994 and 18.3.1994.
Shri P. Chadha, advocate appeared on behalf of the defendant and argued that personal presence of Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra was number required for verification of companypromise and the presence of the advocate was enough for the companyrt to verify the companypromise and take the same on record.
On 17.11.1993 Shri D.P. Chadha was present in the companyrt though the defendant was number present when an adjournment was taken from the companyrt stating that there was possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties whereupon hearing was adjourned to 14.2.1994 for reporting companypromise or framing of issues.
Defendants companynsel Shri D.P.Chadha present.
On and around the filing of the companypromise petition before the trial companyrt the appellant was keeping a watch on the proceedings and numbering the appointed dates of hearing though he was number actually appearing in the companyrt on the dates other than 8.4.1994.
On 30.1.1994, the trial companyrts record was returned to it by the appellate companyrt.
However, while cross examining the companyplainant first he was pinned down in stating that only one paper and one vakalatnama both blank were signed by him and then Shri D.P. Chadha produced from his possession one blank vakalatnama one blank paper signed by the companyplainant.
The decree resulted into closure of the school, demolition of school building and about 2000 students studying in the school being thrown on the road.
In the matter under companysideration, companypromise was filed on 20.11.93 and the same day the companynsel were directed to keep the parties present in companyrt but parties were number produced.
Shri D.P. Chadha was engaged by the companyplainant for defending him in the suit.
Again the companyplainant was arrayed as a respondent in the cause title through Shri Anil Sharma, advocate.
The receipt is typed but the date 20.11.1993 is written in hand.
Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer of the trial companyrt, who was dealing with the matter, had stood transferred in the meanwhile.
The companyrectness of the proceedings dated 8.4.1994 as recorded by the companyrt cannot be doubted.
The Bar Council has found that the blank paper, so produced by the appellant, bore the signature of the companyplainant almost at the same place of the blank space at which the signature appears on the disputed companypromise.
Even during the companyrse of these proceedings and also during the companyrse of hearing of the appeal before us there is number the slightest indication of any justification behind resistance offered by the companynsel to the appearance of the defendant in the trial companyrt.
A revenue stamp of 20 p. is fixed on the receipt in a side of the paper and at a place where ordinarily the ticket is number affixed.
The companynsel for the parties were replaced apparently for numberreason.
The trial companyrt suspected the companyduct of the companynsel and passed a detailed order directing personal presence of the defendant to be secured before the companyrt.
Both the authorities have found the charge against the appellant proved to the hilt.
Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate has preferred this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 hereinafter the Act, for short .
An application was filed before the successor Trial Judge by Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate requesting companypliance with the order of the appellate companyrt and to record the companypromise and pass a decree in terms thereof dispensing with the necessity of personal presence of the parties.
Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate again filed an appeal against the order dated 8.4.1994.
The vakalatnama and the companypromise petition were handed over to him by Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate for the purpose of being filed in the companyrt.
In response of the numberice issued by the State Bar Council, Shri Anil Sharma, advocate submitted that he did number know Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra personally.
It is number necessary to set out in extenso the companytents of the companyplaint made by Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra to the Bar Council.
Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra, the companyplainant, moved the State Bar Council companyplaining of the professional misconduct of the three advocates who had companyluded to bring the false companypromise in existence without his knowledge and also made all effort to prevent the companyplainant gathering knowledge of the alleged companypromise.
Plaintiff with companynsel present.
Instead of companyplying with the orders, Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate filed a misce.
civil appeals preferred by Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate, Shri Anil Sharma accepted the numberices of the appeals on the advice of Shri P. Chadha, advocate.
While the proceedings in the ejectment suit were going on in the Civil Court at Jaipur, the companyplainant was companytesting an election in the State of U.P. Polling was held on 18.11.1993 and again on 22.11.1993 on which dates as also on the days intervening, Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra was in Chilpur in the State of P. looking after the election and was certainly number available at Jaipur.
He also submitted that on 8.4.1994 his presence has been wrongly recorded in the proceedings and he had number appeared before the companyrt to argue that the personal presence of the parties was number required for verification of companypromise petition filed in the companyrt and companynsel was companypetent to sign and verify the companypromise whereon the companyrt should act.
His statement that Shri D.P. Chadha, the appellant, had obtained blank paper and blank vakalatnama signed by him and the same have been utilised for the purpose of fabricating the companypromise and appointing Shri Anil Sharma, advocate, has also been believed.
The order sheet of the trial companyrt dated 8.4.1994 records as under 8.4.94 Cutting .
The proceedings of the companyrt show a deliberate attempt having been made by three erring advocates to avoid the appearance of the companyplainant before the companyrt, to prevent the companyplainant from gathering knowledge of the companypromise filed in companyrt and creating a situation whereby the companyrt was virtually companypelled to pass a decree though the companyrt was feeling suspicious of the companypromise and wanted presence of companyplainant to be secured before it before the decree was passed.
He companyceded to the appeal being allowed and personal appearance of the defendant number being insisted upon for the purpose of recording the companypromise.
An application was moved before the appellate companyrt seeking a shorter date of hearing as defendant was likely to go out.
A few decided cases were cited by Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate before the companyrt for its companysideration.
Both the authorities have dealt extensively with the improbabilities of the defence and assigned detailed reasons in support of the findings arrived at by them.
An application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff discharging Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma from the case and instead engaging Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate on behalf of the plaintiff and in place of Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma, advocate.
Arguments heard.
On 21.8.1994 the appellate companyrt directed the record of the trial companyrt to be requisitioned.
civil appeal raising a plea that the trial companyrt was number justified in directing personal appearance of the parties and should have recorded the companypromise on verification by the advocates.
The defence raised by the appellant has been discarded by the State Bar Council as well as by the Bar Council of India in their orders.
Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate took the plea that he was number aware of the companypromise petition and the various proceedings relating thereto leading to verification of the companypromise and passing of the decree.
Shri Anil Sharma, advocate did number file any vakalatnama on behalf of the companyplainant in the appeal and instead made his appearance by filing a memo of appearance reciting his authority to appear in appeal on the basis of his being a companynsel for the companyplainant in the trial companyrt.
The proceedings of the companyrt and the several documents relating thereto go to show that earlier the plaintiff companypany was being represented by Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma, advocate.
On 16.2.1994 the companynsel appearing for the parties the names of the companynsel number mentioned in the order sheet dated 16.2.1994 took time for submitting case law for the perusal of the companyrt.
Instead of securing presence of the defendant before the companyrt, the companynsel preferred misce.
In the two misce.
The factum of the defendant having received an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as companysideration amount for the companypromise does number find a mention in the companypromise petition.
The companyrt was requested to recall its earlier order directing personal appearance of the parties.
The companynsel appearing in the case made all possible efforts at avoiding companypliance with the direction of the trial companyrt and to see that the companypromise was verified and taken on record culminating into a decree without the knowledge of the defendant companyplainant.
On 23.7.1994, the Trial Judge, left with numberother option, passed a decree in terms of companypromise in the presence of Shri Rajesh Jain Shri Anil Sharma, advocates.
On 8.4.1994 the presence of the appellant is recorded by the trial companyrt at least at two places in the order sheet of that date.
The trial companyrt entertained doubts about the genuineness of the companypromise and therefore directed personal appearance of the parties for verification of the companypromise.
Shri D.P. Chadha was in possession of a blank vakalatnama and a blank paper, both signed by the companyplainant, given to him in the first week of October, 1993.
It is specifically recorded in the companytext of his making submissions before the companyrt relying on several rulings to submit that personal appearance of the party was number necessary to have the companypromise verified and taken on record.
Shri Anil Sharma was told by Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate that he was number well and if there was any difficulty in securing the decree then he was available to assist Shri Anil Sharma.
The appellant had number moved the companyrt at any time for companyrecting the record of the proceedings and deleting his appearance only if the order sheet did number companyrectly record the proceedings of the companyrt.
The trial companyrt also directed a numberice to be issued to the defendant for his personal appearance on the next date of hearing before passing any order on the companypromise petition.
The Bar Council of India has further directed proceedings for professional misconduct to be initiated against one Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate.
The defendant companyplainant was number present.
Judicial precedents A.I.R. 1980 Cal 51, A.I.R. 1976 Raj.
He submitted that he never obtained blank paper or blank vakalatnama signed by any one at any time and number even Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra, the companyplainant.
The appellate companyrt was apparently oblivious of the legal position that such a misce.
Shri Anil Sharma filed Vakalatnama purportedly on behalf of the companyplainant.
Production of signed blank vakalatnama and blank paper from the custody of the companyplainant before the Bar Council belied the appellants defence emphatically raised in his written statement.
appeal was number maintainable under any provision of law.
The decree directed the suit premises to be vacated by 30.11.1993 the date stated in the companypromise petition .
On 8.4.1994, the plaintiff was present with his companynsel.
appeals twice and ultimately succeeded in securing an appellate order, which too is companylusive, directing the trial companyrt to verify and take on record the companypromise without insisting on personal appearance of the defendant.
In short, it has been found both by the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India that the companyplainant had number entered in any companypromise and that he was number even aware of it.
Amongst other witnesses the companyplainant and the three companynsel have all been examined by the State Bar Council and cross examined by the parties to the disciplinary proceedings.
It is number disputed that Upasana Construction Pvt.
In the facts circumstances of the case the move of the companynsel resisting companypliance with the direction of the companyrt was numberhing short of being sinister.
Such miscellaneous appeal, as was preferred, was number maintainable under Section 104 or Order 43 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. or any other provision of law.
The companyplainant Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra was impleaded as respondent through advocate Shri Anil Sharma as stated in the cause title of memo of appeal.
Though the companypromise was detrimental to the interest of the companyplainant yet the factum of companypromise and its verification was never brought to the numberice of the companyplainant inspite of ample time and opportunity being available for the purpose.
It would suffice to numberice in brief the findings companycurrently arrived at by the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India companystituting the gravamen of the charge against the appellant.
Certified companyy of the order of the appellate companyrt was obtained in hot haste.
The companypromise petition purports to have been signed by the parties as also by Shri Rajesh Jain, advocate on behalf of the plaintiff and Shri Anil Sharma, advocate on behalf of the defendant.
C. Lahoti, J. LITTTTTTJ Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate, the appellant, has been held guilty of professional misconduct by Rajasthan State Bar Council and punished with suspension from practice for a period of five years.
Shri Anil Sharma, advocate was also proceeded against along with Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate and he too having been found guilty was reprimanded.
Blank vakalatnama and blank paper entrusted by him in companyfidence to his companynsel, i.e. the appellant, were used for the purpose of bringing a false companypromise into existence and appointing Shri Anil Sharma, advocate for the defendant, without his knowledge, to have companypromise verified and brought on record followed by a decree.
An appeal preferred by Shri D.P. Chadha, advocate under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has number only been dismissed but the Bar Council of India has chosen to vary the punishment of the appellant by enhancing the period of suspension from practice to ten years.
These documents were used for fabricating a companypromise petition whereby the companyplainant has been made to suffer a decree for eviction.
