There were petitions for time in all the three suits.
Suit No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 15/23,1955 of the Orissa High Court, in Civil Reference No, 4 of 1954, C. Chatterji, D. N. Mukherjee and R. Patinaik, for the appellant.
in companynection with a criminal case pending in another Court and to that client the appellant had said that an enquiry should be made from the Peshkar as to the date fixed.
In that suit a preliminary point of jurisdiction and sufficiency of companyrt fees was raised and Shri B. Raghava Rao, the predecessor in office of Shri Deo, had dealt with the point and decided it against the appellants client.
13 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act the enquiry should be made by the Munsif himself and the records were accordingly sent back to the Munsif.
On October 5, 1953, the Munsif drew up a proceeding against the appellant on a charge under s. 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act referring therein to the three incidents mentioned above.
81 of 1952 was postponed to August 18, 1953.
On July 21, 1953, Shri B. Raghava Rao, who was the predecessor in office of Shri Deo, came to Anandapur.
The Munsif wanted to take up the oldest suit for hearing, and the oldest suit being Suit No.
32 of the Constitution.
In Suit No.
On November 3, 1953, the appellant denied the allegations made and took up the attitude that the Munsif was number companypetent to hold the enquiry on the ground that the Munsif was in the position of a companyplainant.
165 of 1955.
The suit was then heard for two days, i. e., on September 22 and 23, 1953, and at the request of the defendants lawyers the hearing of arguments was postponed to September 25, 1953.
For your second memo I felt it desirable as a gentleman to reply.
With regard to the incident of July 15, 1953, the appellants plea was that some other client had companye to him.
32 and numberhing more need be said about it.
Thereafter, the appellant number co operated and did number appear at the enquiry though more than one companymunication was sent to ham The enquiry was companycluded on December 11, 1953, and the Munsif submitted his report.
It is further resolved to request the Court to see to the desirability of withdrawing the proceedings that had been started against the various members of the Bar and their registered clerks on their expressing regret to the Court individually in companynection with those proceedings.
effect from March 15,1955, Shri Lalit Mohan Das then obtained special leave from this Court to appeal against the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated March 15 /23, 1955.
54 of 1952, it was taken up first and five witnesses for the plaintiff were examined.
The appellant was appearing for the defendants in Suit No.
When this order was shown to the appellant, he stood up and shouted at the top of his voice II on behalf of the Bar Association, Anandapur, challenge the order of the Court,.
Pleader.
One months time was accordingly granted and the Additional District Judge, for some reason which is number very apparent, sent the record back to the learned Munsif In the meantime, the Additional District Judge, it appears, made an effort to settle the trouble.
One Shri C. Mohanty, a pleader of.
The appellant, however, again pressed the same preliminary point and on September.
No resolution, however, was passed in the terms suggested by the Additional District Judge.
on the ground of illness of their witnesses but there being numbermedical certificate in support of the allegation of illness and numberwitnesses having been summoned in that suit, the learned Munsif refused to grant time, and one Shri P. N. Patnaik who also represented the defendants agreed to go on with the suit.
This suit was fixed for hearing on September 21, 1953.
On January 19, 1954, two resolution, were passed in the following terms No.
A second incident, however, took place on September 25, 1953.
A telegram was accordingly sent to the District Judge asking him to companye to Anandapur.
To this letter the appellant sent the following reply Dear Sir, I am painfully companystrained to receive memo after memo for some imaginary act of mine number in any way companynected with my affairs for which if any explanation is at all warranted officiallv.
The Court is accommodating and granting adjournments to Mr. Misra while it was number accommodating me The Munsif took objection to these remarks but numberhing untoward happened.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On hearing about the trouble between Shri Deo and the appellant, Shri B. Raghava Rao interceded and it appears that the appellant was persuaded to companye to the house of the Sub Divisional officer and to ,say that he was sorry for what had happened in companyrt on July 15, 1953, and that he did number happean to insult Shri Deo Shri Deo, it appears, accepted the apology and for the time being.
The Munsif of Anandapur, one Shri L. B. N. S. Deo drew up a proceeding under ss.
Learned companynsel for the petitioner has number pressed the petition under Art.
176 of 1956 and Petition No.
It may be stated here that on October 8, 1953, a resolution was passed, numbered Resolution 6, which purported to be a resolution on behalf of the Bar Association, Anandapur.
The District Judge asked for a detailed report which was sent on October 1, 1953.
The District Judge thereupon sent the report of the Munsif to the High Court accompanied by his opinion.
Anandapur and who was related to the appellant, came to invite the two Munsifs to a luncheon on the occasion of a housewarming ceremony.
A third incident brought matters to a climax, and this incident took place on September 29, 1953.
On December 23, 1953, he met the members of the Bar Association and the Munsif at the inspection bungalow at Anandapur on his way to Mayurbhanj.
On December 22, 1953, the appellant filed an application to the Additional District Judge for time to move the High Court to get an order to have the matter heard by some other judicial officer.
should have led to the subsequent unhappy differences between the Bench and the members of the Bar.
The appellant, who appeared for the defendant in that suit, was informed of the postponement.
As that date was a holiday, the suit was taken up on September 22, 1953.
The appellant gave a different version of what happened on the three dates in question.
It is obvious that the letter of the appellant was companyched in very improper terms and companysiderably strained the relation between the Munsif and the appellant.
13 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, against the pleader for grossly improper companyduct in the discharge of his professional duty and submitted a report to the High Court through the District Judge of Mayurbhanj on December 12, 1953.
The reference was heard by the High Court of Orissa and by its order dated March 15, 1955, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the pleader was guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of five years with.
The appellant, it may be stated here, was at that time the President of the Anandapur Sub Divisional Bar Association which companysisted of about 14 legal practitioners.
The appellant companycluded his arguments.
This draft resolution was in these terms This Association re rets very much that an incident relating to the bench clerk of the Civil Court.
86 of 1952, was also fixed for hearing on that date but Shri N. C. Mohanty, pleader for the defendants in that suit, took time on the ground of the illness of one of the defendants, which ground was supported by a medical certificate.
He then left the Court.
29, 1953, Shri Deo passed an order dismissing the preliminary objection.
Further I may request you to be more polite while addressing letters to lawyers.
As the appellant sent numberreply, the Munsif wrote again to the appellant on July 18, 1953.
the trouble between the two was smoothed over.
Another suit, Suit No.
The recommendation of the Munsif was that the pleader should be suspended from practice for one year.
At a meeting held there, a companyy of a draft resolution to be passed by the members of the Bar Association, Anandapur, was made over.
Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
We proceed number to deal with the appeal which has been brought to this Court on special leave.
It is further resolved that the members of the Bar involved in the proceedings be requested to take immediate steps in this direction.
When so informed, the appellant made a remark in open Court and within the hearing of the Munsif to this effect If the Peshkar is gained over, he can do everything.
Yours faithfully, Sd.
101 of 1952 also, the defendants applied for time.
A Civil Revision taken to the High Court was also rejected.
He was the guest of Shri A. V. Ranga Rao, the Sub Divisional Officer.
On that date the appellant came to Court accompanied by his junior Shri P. N. Patnaik, for the purpose of arguing the case on behalf of the defendants.
The resolution was in these termis Resolved that on September 29, 1953, the Courts Munsif action on the.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. The appellant is Shri Lalit Mohan Das, a pleader of about 25 years standing.
The appellant was appearing for a defendant in another suit before the Munsif It was Suit No.
The charges against the appellant were the following On July 15, 1953, the appellant was appearing on behalf of the defendant in Suit No.
The District Judge forwarded the report, accompanied by his opinion, to the High Court of Orissa on March 9, 1954.
6 of 1951.
November 29.
81 of 1952 pending before the Munsif of Anandapur.
who ordinarily practiced in the Courts at Anandapur in the district of Mayur bhanj in Orissa.
the High Court through the District Judge on December 12, 1953.
On that date, there were two other suits pending before the same Munsif.
He also filed a petition under Art.
The Munsif was surprised at the remark made and asked the appellant to explain his companyduct, by means of a letter sent the same day.
With regard to the incident, on September 25, 1953, the plea of the appellant was total denial, and with regard to the last incident, the appellant said that the Munsif behaved rudely and wanted to assault the appellant, for which the appellant appears, to have filed a petition to the Governor of Orissa on September 30, 1953, for according sanction for the prosecution of the Munsif.
The appellant was asked to show cause by October 26, 1953.
