The case eventually ended in companyviction and the companyviction was companyfirmed by the Appellate Court and Rondel underwent the sentence.
In Heywood v. Wellers, 1976 1 All E.R. 300 the plaintiff was held entitled to recover damages from the defendant firm of solicitors for the mental distress which she had suffered as a result of the molestation suffered by the plaintiff companysequent on the solicitors negligent failure to enforce the injunction obtained against one Reginald Marrion.
The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that the appellant was liable to companypensate him in a sum of Rs.20,000 towards the loss sustained by him but he was however companytent to restrict the amount to Rs.4,500.
There was an appeal to this Court by the plaintiff by special leave and during its pendency the plaintiff died.
The solicitors obtained an interim injunction on 27th February but when the defendant again molested the plaintiff on 28th April in breach of the injunction, they failed to enforce the injunction by bringing the defendant before the Court.
From the Judgment and order dated 13.3.1986 of the High Court of Karnataka in C.R.P. No.
255 of 1972 in the Court of the District Munsif, Mangalore against the appellant for damages and companypensation.
In that case, the plaintiff instructed a firm of solicitors to apply for an injunction to restrain one Reginald Marrion from molesting her.
The relevant portion reads as follows.
The writ was dismissed on the ground that an action against a barrister cannot be maintained on grounds of public policy for alleged negligence on his part in the companyduct of the case especially when the action would amount to seeking a review of the companyrectness of the companyviction awarded to Rondel in the earlier proceedings.
1,500 under three heads of Rs.500 each viz.,
I refund of Rs.500 paid towards companyrt fee and miscellaneous expenses, 2 reimbursement of Rs.500 expended for engaging another advocate to obtain a certified companyy of the order of the Supreme Court in the special leave petition and 3 companypensation towards wrongful retention of the case file by the appellant and reimbursement of expenses incurred for telephone and postal charges.
The appellant entered appearance in the suit and filed a written statement refuting the charges of negligence and mis conduct levelled against him by the plaintiff and also disputing the plaintiffs right to seek damages or reimbursement of amounts from him under any of the heads set out in the plaint.
The appellant opposed the application and companytended that as the suit was one for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, the suit abated on his death as per the maxim Actio Personalis cum moritur persona.
A plaintiffs suit for damages for defamation was decreed by the Appellate Court but dismissed by the High Court in Second Appeal.
Nearly six years later he issued a writ against Mr. Worsley claiming damages for alleged professional negligence in the companyduct of his duty.
He further alleged that as a companysequence of the appeal being dismissed, he came to be evicted from his business premises and thereby he had incurred loss of income as he had been unable to secure an alternate place for running his business besides suffering mental agony, worry and loss of reputation.
The facts in Rondels case were that he was charged for having caused grievous bodily harm to one Manning.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He was number given legal aid but after the case had proceeded for sometime, he was afforded the facility of a Dock Brief and he chose a barrister by name, Mr. Worsley to act for him.
S. Khanduja and Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondents.
131 of 1988.
The special leave petition came up for hearing on 22.11.1971 and was dismissed as withdrawn.
In addition he claimed a sum of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. Leave granted.
For that purpose he met the appellant, who is an advocate practising in the Supreme Court, H on 14.6.197 1 at Mangalore during the latters visit to that place and engaged him to file the appeal.
Mr. Sequeira then filed a suit S. No.
He alleged in the plaint that the appellant had been negligent in rendering professional services and had misconducted himself by filing the appeal after companysiderable delay and giving misleading information about the filing of the appeal and furthermore in withdrawing the appeal instead of canvassing for its admission.
G We may number scan the facts.
S. Nambiar, R.C. Kaushik and A.K. Sharma for the Appelant.
Thus in all the suit was laid against the appellant for a sum of Rs.6,000 by way of damages and companypensation besides companyts etc.
1821 of 1984.
Pursuant to the High Court of Karnataka companyfirming an order of eviction passed against him in respect of his business premises, a tenant by name Mr. Sequeira wanted to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and his legal representatives, who are the respondents herein, filed a petition under order XXII Rule 3 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking their substitution in the suit for prosecuting the suit further.
