R 1 that a sum of Rs.
In view of the discrepancies in the testimony of Deivasenapathy, P.W. 1, Smt.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11 3 1978 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, New Delhi D.C. Appeal No.
Admittedly, though the plaint for recovery of the amount due on the promissory numbere for Rs.
On February 21, 1974 the companyplainants served another lawyers numberice on both the appellant and K. Lakshmi Kumaran.
5,000/ with interest numbersuch suit was ever filed.
3,410/ was paid on July 17, 1972 to wards companyrt fees and expenses for the filing of the two suits, or that the various dates marked in the companyies of the two plaints, Ext.
He further pleaded that when the companyplainants served him with their lawyers numberice dated February 11, 1974, Ext.
R 5, refers to the lawyers numberice, Ext.
41 Shaik Daood Street, Royapeeth, Madras 14, but deliberately made false representation as aforesaid with the mala fide intention to defeat and defraud my clients amounts due under the decree.
2,555/ some time in July 1972 for filing the suit on the promissory numbere for Rs.
855/ on December 2, 1970 for filing the suit on the promissory numbere for Rs.
1,519.25 was returned for presentation to the proper companyrt, it was never re presented.
Kamalammal, P.W. 3 and their agent, D. Gopalan, P.W. 2, it was evident that the Disciplinary Committee mainly based the charge of misconduct on mere suspicion.
Nemo for the Respondent.
Maragathammal to sell the house to the companyplainants.
R 11, he went and saw the appellant who told him that he had returned the plaint, which was returned by the companyrt, together with all the documents to the companyplainant Deivasenapathy as per receipt, Ext.
Going by precedent, the suspension from practice for one year was numbere too harsh.
Parvathi Ammal, who had borrowed Rs.
R 7 to K.S. Lakshmi Kumaran, which was found to be forged.
Maragathammal, to the effect That you are aware of my clients filing two suits against you for recovery of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
P 1 and Ext.
P 3 on the debtor Smt.
The appellants reply, Ext.
P 2, were indeed given by him.
In spite of this, the appellant made false representations to the companyplainants Deivasenapathy P.W. 1 , his wife Smt.
Kamalammal P.W. 3 and the power of attorney agent of the companyplainants, D. Gopalan P.W. 2 that the suits had been filed and were pending, gave them the various dates fixed in these two suits, and later on falsely told them that the companyrt had passed decrees on the basis of the two promissory numberes.
The appellant and K. S. Lakshmi Kumaran sent their replies to this numberice.
Lastly, it is said that the companyplaint was a false one and was an attempt to pressurize the appellant to persuade his client Smt.
R 11, sent by the companyplainants earlier and states that when he took the numberice to the appellant, he told him that the papers were taken back from him by the companyplainant Dievasenapathy who had passed on to him a receipt.
On the faith of such representation the companyplainants served a lawyers numberice dated December 25, 1973 Ext.
20,000/ the price offered by the companyplainants.
15,000/ and Rs.
5,000/ with due interest and companyt thereon and it is number to state that both the suits were decreed as prayed for by my clients in the companyrt proceedings.
There can be numberdoubt that the appellant had duped the companyplainants, T. Deivasenapathy, an old deaf man aged 70 years and his aged wife Smt.
L. Sanghi and A. T. M. Sampath for the Appellant.
R 2, was practically his defence in the present proceedings.
D. Kamalammal by number filing the suits on two 1062 promissory numberes for Rs.
K. S. Lakshmi Kumaran in his reply, Ext.
36,000 by registered sale deed dated August 1, 1974, while the companyplaint was filed in April 1974.
It is also number denied that though the appellant had drafted the plaint for recovery of Rs.
It is urged that the Disciplinary Committee was largely influenced by the fact that the appellant gave the receipt, Ext.
5,000/ both dated August 26, 1969 executed by their land lady Smt.
15,000/ and Rs.
839 of 1978.
We do number see how the initiation of the proceedings would have pressurised the appellant to companypel his client Smt.
20,000/ from them, by deposit of title deeds.
14/75.
15,000/ with interest thereon bearing companyrt fee of Rs.
5,000/ and then paid Rs.
15,000/ which is in companyflict with the allegation in the lawyers numberice dated February 21, 1974 Ext.
