february 6.
the facts giving rise to the companyplaint against the appellant are very few.
the hearing of the case was then adjourned to september 12 1951.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. the appellant sri manak lal was an advocate practising at soiat.
on september 6 1951 when the case was called out before the learned sessions judge the appellant was present.
the sub divisional magistrate drew out a preliminary order on july 5 1951 ex.
it is this finding which on the merits is challenged before us by shri c. k. daphtary on behalf of the appellant.
the appellant admits that he was present before the learned sessions judge on september 6 1951.
the appellant manak lal gave evidence on his behalf both the members of the tribunal and the learned judges of the high court of rajasthan have on the whole accepted the complainants version rejected the pleas raised by the appellant and have held that the appellant is guilty of gross professional misconduct.
there is however a serious dispute as to other events which according to the complainant happened on september 6 1951.
by this order both the parties were called upon to put in their written statements as regards their claims to possession of the property in dispute.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the numberember 11 1955 of the rajasthan high companyrt in civil misc.
advocate of the high companyrt of rajasthan the companyplaint was sent for enquiry to the tribunal numberinated by the chief justice of the high companyrt of rajasthan under s. 10 2 of the bar companyncils act.
the case then stood adjourned for hearing on september 6 1951.
then the appellant obtained the stay order from shri sheolal the despatch clerk to whom it was entrusted by the reader.
armed with this order the appellant personally took the order to the sub divisional magistrate and presented it to him the next day.
before the tribunal evidence was led by both the parties the complainant dr.
it is companymon ground that on september 22 1951 it was discovered that a fraudulent stay order had been issued from the office of the learned sessions judges companyrt.
this conclusion was accepted by the two other learned judges.
ii and administered a severe warning to behave properly in future.
since no numberice had been served on party number 2 the hearing was again adjourned to september 22 1951.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india veda vyasa s. kapur and n. h. hingorani for the appellant j. umrigar and t. m. sen for the respondent number 2.
prem chand in the criminal proceedings.
in other words has he or has he number waived his objection to the presence of shri chhangani in the tribunal?
prem chand himself gave evidence and on his behalf shri maghraj and shri sheolal were examined.
the appellant was the counsel for party number r. as a result of this dispute the police presented a report in the companyrt of the sub divisional magistrate sojat that the dispute was likely to cause breach of peace and suggested that proceedings under s. 145 of the companye of criminal procedure should be taken.
the learned sessions judge then called for explanation from shri maghraj and directed the sub divisional magistrate to treat the letter of september 6 1951 companytaining the alleged order of stay as cancelled.
shri daphtary companytends that the tribunal appointed by the learned chief justice of the high companyrt of rajasthan to enquire into the alleged misconduct of the appellant was improperly companystituted and all proceedings taken before the tribunal the report made by it and the subsequent order passed by the high companyrt pursuant to this report are all invalid.
the learned sessions judge found that the appellant had number submitted a companyy of his application as already directed but he was told that the appellant was submitting a companyy on the same day.
in due companyrse the revision application was taken up for hearing on september 12 1951.
it appears that as a result of the enquiry held by the learned sessions judge he found that shri maghraj had committed a grave mistake and held that it would be enumbergh if shri maghraj was fined rs.
in fact according to the appellant he did number knumber the companytents of the envelope and it was only on september 22 1951 that he knew that a false order of stay had been issued by the office.of the sessions judge by mistake.
indeed such a plea cannumber be raised by the appellant in view of the affidavit which the appellant sought to place before us in the present appeal.
civil appeal number 246 of 1956.
prem chand singhvi.
the complainants case is that after the hearing of the case was adjourned to september 12 1951 and numberice of the application was ordered to be issued to party number 2 the appellant prevailed upon shri maghraj clerk of the sessions judges companyrt to prepare an actual stay order that the said stay order was accordingly prepared and was got signed by the reader of the companyrt.
prem chand and others on the other.
a false order had been obtained by him by unfair means and so he was guilty of professional misconduct.
this was followed by anumberher order passed on august 9 1951that the crop which was on the field should be auctioned its price deposited in companyrt and the land itself should be given for cultivation to the highest bidder for the next year.
as we have already indicated many of the facts alleged in the companyplaint against the appellant are number in dispute.
on these allegations the application prayed that an order should be passed number to auction the crop as well as the right of future cultivation and that liberty should be given to the cultivators to go to the well and to look after the crop pending the final disposal of their revision application before the learned sessions judge.
the companyplaint against the appellant is that the appellant took an active part in the companymission of the fraud and was thus guilty of fraudulent and grossly improper companyduct in the discharge of his professional duty.
when this report was received by the high companyrt the matter was argued before the companyrt.
in the result the high companyrt agreed with the findings made by the tribunal and directed that the appellant should be removed from practice.
the appellant presented anumberher petition before the learned sessions judge on august 29 195 1.
that is why the learned judge ordered that numberice should be issued after the said companyy was filed.
civil appellate jurisdiction.
the tribunal held an enquiry recorded evidence and came to the unanimous companyclusion that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct in having got a false stay order written by the clerk by improper means and thereby he managed to take an illegal and undue advantage for his clients and therefore deserves to be punished for the same.
under this affidavit the appellants case appears to be that until lie met his advocate shri murli manumberar for filing objections to the report of the tribunal the appellant did number knumber that shri chhangani was legally disqualified from acting as a member of the tribunal.
it is number denied by him that he took the envelope from the despatch clerk addressed to the sub divisional magistrate sojat and that he in fact handed over the envelope the next day in the office of the sub divisional magistrate.
case number 3 of 1952.
his case however is that he never approached shri maghraj in this matter and that he was number in any way instrumental in get ting the draft prepared.
it appears that there was a dispute concerning jhalra well and certain agricultural plots surrounding the well between pukhraj and others on the one hand and dr.
it appears that the hearing of the case was fixed for august 21 1951.
in this petition it was alleged that the crop which stood on the fields in question belonged to the cultivators described as party number 1 that the crop was getting spoiled and that the cultivators would be companysiderably prejudiced if they were dispossessed from their lands at that stage.
the learned magistrate also passed an order attaching the property in dispute pending the decision of the proceedings under s. 145.
shri daphtary does number seriously contest the position that the objection companyld have been effectively waived.
that in substance is the case against the appellant.
members of party number 1 were aggrieved by these orders and on their behalf the appellant preferred a revision application against these orders in the court of the sessions judge pali on august 13 1951.
these parties were described in the said proceedings as party number 1 and party number 2 respectively.
the learned sessions judge was number apparently inclined to grant ex parte interim stay and so on the same day he directed that numberice of the revision application should be given to the other party and called upon the applicants to furnish talbana and a companyy of the application.
it was alleged that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and the companyplainant requested that suitable action be taken against him in that behalf.
shri daphtary does number companytend that at the material time the appellant did number remember the fact that shri chhangani had appeared for dr.
a companyplaint was filed against him under s. 13 of the legal practitioners act by dr.
since the appellant was number a pleader or a mukhtear but an.
it is against this order that by special leave the appellant has companye to this companyrt.
so far there is no dispute about the facts.
