However in respect of third head of charge, the disciplinary companymittee observed that it has number been established to our satisfaction that the advocate companycerned had got Shri Udai Bir Singh implicated in any criminal case as alleged by the companyplainant but his companyduct as regard the gift deed executed by Shri Khazan Singh, his vakalatnama and written statement filed in the case instituted by Chhotey Singh for cancellation of the gift deed remain unexplained.
The disciplinary companymittee of the Bar Council of India held that affidavit filed by Khazan Singh in the civil suit filed by Chhotey Singh was vague and does number companyform to the requirement of the affidavit in the question of verification statement on personal knowledge and therefore it did number furnish reliable evidence against the appellant.
The disciplinary companymittee observed that Chhotey Singh, one of the companycomplainants had moved an application on October 16, 1970 requesting the companymittee to delete the name of Chhotey Singh from the array of companycomplainants.
Sarbati Devi wife of his real brother and his father Khazan for cancellation of a gift deed alleged to have been executed by Khazan in favour of Smt.
Udaibir Singh Saxena, who was, at the relevant time, Assistant Registrar, Kanungo and actuated with a desire to implicate him in a criminal case, he forged an application by ante dating it from 6th July, 1968 to 3rd July, 1968.
Whether the Advocate companycerned got a forged Vakalatnama and written statement through Sri Mahesh Chandra Mittal, Advocate filed on behalf of Khazan Singh in Suit No.
On this ground, the finding of the disciplinary companymittee of the State Bar Council on charges 1 and 2 was reversed.
They may be extracted Whether the Advocate companycerned got the gift deed dated 10.7.68 executed by Khazan Singh in favour of Smt.
The affidavit of Chhotey Singh before the disciplinary companymittee of the State Bar Council was rejected on the identical ground that the verification is number according to the rules of Bar Council of India prescribing the procedure to be followed by disciplinary companymittee of State Bar Council.
When Khazan realised that he was the victim of the machinations of the appellant, he filed an affidavit in the suit to which he was a party alleging therein that the appellant had himself forged the signatures on Vakalatnama and companysent application.
The disciplinary companymittee discarded the evidence of Chhotey Singh observing that earlier he had filed an affidavit dated September 10, 1970 supporting the allegation in the companyplaint and thereafter it was on October 16, 1970 that he moved application Exh.
This statement was companystrued to mean that the appellant was exonerated in respect of the third head of charge and found guilty in respect of the first two heads of charges.
This has some relevance because after this appeal was heard for some time, Miss Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant, sought an adjournment to file an affidavit of the appellant and one Shri Mahesh Chand Mittal who had appeared for Khazan in the suit filed by Chhotey Singh.
The allegation was that taking advantage of the old age and mental infirmity of Khazan, Appellant Narendra Singh, nephew of Khazan companyluded with alleged donee in obtaining the gift deed.
The Judgment dated August 9, 1983 in Civil Appeal No.
Whether the Advocate companycerned filed an application said to be antedated as 3.7.68 on 6.7.68 and falsely got Sri Udai Bir Singh, Asstt.
A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against appellant Narendra Singh, Advocate on the roll of the Bar Candy of Uttar Pradesh on the companyplaint of Sh.
The disciplinary companymittee imposed a punishment of suspension for a period of six months from practice as an advocate.
If so, is the Advocate companycerned guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct?
Subsequently Chhotey Singh and Faqir Chand filed a companyplaint against the appellant before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh which referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee and that is how the matter came up before the disciplinary companymittee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The disciplinary companymittee did number record finding in respect of each of three heads of charges seperately.
On receipt of this application, the learned Munsif before whom the suit was pending issued numberice to the appellant to show cause why appropriate action be number taken against him.
Though for all practical purposes, this appeal had become futile and inconsequential by sheer lapse of time, some life came to be infused into it because of a subsequent development which prompted the learned advocate to move this Court for hearing the appeal.
If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct?
However, before any order companyld be made in the proceedings, Khazan died and it appears that the learned Munsif dropped the proceedings.
The disciplinary companymittee was number inclined to attach any importance to the issue of the numberice by the learned Munsif calling upon the appellant to show cause why appropriate action should number be taken against him.
If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or any other companyduct?
Further allegation was that the appellant had forged signature of Khazan in the Vakalatnama and companysent application filed on behalf of Khazan in the suit.
There was thus numberevidence on behalf of the appellant explaining circumstances appearing in the evidence of the companyplainant and the documents placed on record.
Evidence was led before the disciplinary companymittee.
Sharbati Devi, his daughter in law against his instructions?
It may be mentioned that the appellant did number choose to enter the witness box to deny or companytradict the allegations against him.
D 1 praying for deletion of his name from the array of companycomplainants.
Taking numbere of this fact, the disciplinary companymittee observed that evidence of Chhotey Singh cannot be relied upon in view of his earlier affidavit and in view of the fact that he is a near relation of the appellant and does number appear to be a votary of truth.
Presumably, this led to the filing of Civil Suit No.
Faqir Chand prosecuted the companyplaint.
It was further observed that it must be rejected on the short ground that the averments therein made are number shown to be to the personal knowledge of the deponent.
Three charges were framed against the appellant.
The application was in companynection with acquisition of Bhumidari rights.
952 of 1975.
478/68 by companyplainant Chottey Singh against Smt.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Bar Council of India and this appeal came up before the disciplinary companymittee of the Bar Council of India.
Chhotey Singh and Shri Faqir Chand.
Registrar Kanungo arrested, challaned and prosecuted?
746 of 1968 of the Court of the Munsif, Bulandshahr?
Sarbati Devi.
Charge No.
Chhotey Singh went to the extent of offering himself as a witness for the appellant.
Broadly stated, the allegation was that the appellant was annoyed with one Sh.
development and the event would be referred to at the relevant places in companyrse of the judgment.
