The appeal by the plaintiffs was allowed by the Subordinate Judge.
The appellant was the Advocate for these plaintiffs.
Judge, Guntur was directed.
the withdrawal was ordered.
The appellant was an Advocate and hence the companyplaint was treated as one under s. 10 2 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated August 4, 1959 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Referred Case No.
The explanation of the Advocate was called for.
he cashed this cheque on behalf of his clients or that the latter were entitled to be paid this sum and the charge of professional misconduct against the appellant was that the Advocate had number made this payment in spite of demands but that on the other hand he falsely claimed to have paid them this sum.
On April 14, 1956 the appellant replied to this numberice claiming to have paid over the sum to them on their passing a receipt and stating.that the receipt happened to be in the bundle of case papers which had been returned to them.
A cheque petition E.A. 250 of 1952 was accordingly filed which was allowed and thereafter a cheque was issued in favour of the Advocate the appellant before us for Rs.
But even before the receipt of this reply the three respondents before us filed a companyplaint under ss.
that he did number pay over the amount of the cheque to his clients was clearly made out, held him guilty of professional misconduct and imposed the punishment of suspension from practice, as stated earlier.
29 of 1957 Rajagopalan and K.R. Choudhri, for the appellant.
7 was an impersonator.
The security was furnished and.
By virtue of interim orders passed by the Court they were granted liberty, to withdraw the sum pending disposal of the second appeal in the High.
In pursuance of this order a sum of about Rs.
The suit was dismissed by the Trail Court and an appeal was filed therefrom to the Subordinate Judge, Guntur and pending the disposal of the appeal there was a direction by the Court that the crops standing on the suit land be sold and the proceeds deposited into Court.
The plaintiffs had therefore to refund the sum to the defendants in the suit.
An elaborate inquiry was thereafter held by the learned District Judge who, after companysidering the .evidence, submitted a report recording his companyclusion that the appellants case was number unbelievable and that on that ground he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
To resume the narrative of the matters leading to these proceedings, the second appeal before the High Court was disposed of in August, 1955 and by the judgment of that Court the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit dismissed.
The case of the companyplainants, however, was that the man examined as companyrt witness No.
The fourth plaintiff was one Kagga Veeraiah.
12 and 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act alleging the number payment of the money and charging the Advocate with professional misconduct in respect of it, and praying for an enquiry into his companyduct.
To prove the death of the real Kagga Veeraiah an extract from the death certificate was produced in companyrt by the companyplainants.
The matter was thereafter heard by a Bench of 3 Judges and the learned Judges being of the opinion that the charge against the appellant viz.,
The unsuccessful defendants preferred a second appeal to the High Court, but meanwhile the plaintiffs made an application for withdrawing the amount deposited in Court.
1,452/4/ , this being the sum remaining to the credit of the plaintiffs after deduction of poundage etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal No.
The matter then came up before the High Court for companysideration on this report.
Court filed by the defendants on furnishing security of immovable property.
The man who was examined did depose that the money was paid to the plaintiffs in his presence and, numberdoubt, if that statement along with the identity of the deponent was accepted the appellants defence would have been made out.
The witness was severely cross examined about his identity and in particular, questioned about the details of the parties and other details regarding the subject matter of O.S. 432 of 1951 and his answers were most unsatisfactory, to say the least.
Agreeing with the submission they directed the District Judge to summon and examine them and this was accordingly done, their evidence was recorded and submitted to the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. This appeal has been filed by special leave of this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the appellant who is an Advocate was held guilty of professional misconduct and had been suspended from practice for five years.
On February 8, 1956 the plaintiffs made a written demand on the appellant for the sum companyplaining that the cheque had been cashed by him but that its proceeds had number been paid over.
The facts relating to the misconduct charged were briefly these The three respondents before us and one other Kagga Veeraiah were plaintiffs m O.S. 432 of 1951 on the file of District Munsiff, Guntur in which a claim was made for possession of certain lands.
and thereafter the District.
The appellant did number dispute that.
321 of 1962.
The appellant then applied and obtained leave of this companyrt special leave under Art.
1,600/ was deposited into Court on December 19, 1951.
April 10.
It was admitted that this cheque was cashed by the appellant on April 23, 1953.
Some point appears to have been made before the Court that certain material witnesses had number been examined.
to hold an inquiry into the allegations of professional misconduct against the appellant and forward his report to the High Court.
The respondent did number appear.
