IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6328 OF 2005

T. LAXMAN KUMAR ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

PRADEEP KUMAR PATIL ... RESPONDENT

O R D E R We have heard Mr.Y.Raja Gopala Rao, learned counsel  

for  the  appellant  and  perused  the  order  passed  by  the  

Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council  of India impugned in  

the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.  

Mr.Y.Raja  Gopala  Rao,  submits  that  a  Civil  Suit  

(O.S.No.38/1996) was filed by the present appellant against the  

proprietor,  Panthulu  Hotel,  No.14-60,  New  Bazar,  Badepalli,  

Mahabubnagar  District.  The  appellant  did  not  instruct  his  

advocate (respondent herein) not to press the Suit. Learned  

counsel would submit that had the Memo (Exh.R/1) been prepared  

on the instructions of the appellant, it would have been filed  

by the respondent before the Trial Court on February 16, 1996.  

He invited our attention to the deposition of the respondent  

before the Disciplinary Committee.

The Disciplinary Committee, on consideration of the  

evidence on record, concluded that the respondent-advocate made  

endorsement on the plaint  'as not pressed'  on the basis of  

the  Memo  (Exh.R/1).   The  Disciplinary  Committee  found  the  

explanation of the advocate natural.

: 2 :

We  have  no  justifiable  reason  to  take  a  view  

different from the Disciplinary Committee in this regard.  If  

the Complainant is right in his allegation that the respondent  

obtained  signatures  on  blank  papers  and  used  the  same  in  

preparing  the  Memo  (Exh.R/1)  and  in  fact  he  did  not  give  

instructions to his advocate  not to press the suit, he would  

not have waited for two years in filing the complaint.  The  

explanation  that  the  appellant  had  no  knowledge  of  the  

dismissal of Suit for about two years hardly merits acceptance.  

In a Suit of this nature, where the  grievance of the appellant  

(Plaintiff in the Suit) was that the defendant has put the  

generator in his property and he sought removal of  generator,  

he obviously would have been keen to know the progress in the  

Suit  from  the  advocate  on  every  date  and  not  let  the  

proceedings remain dormant for two years. Moreover, had the  

respondent  (advocate)  acted  without  instructions  in  not  

pressing the suit, the appellant would have definitely taken  

steps for restoration of the suit which he never did.  The  

appellant, as a matter of fact, has failed to prove by cogent  

and reliable evidence that the Memo (Exh.R/1) was a forged and  

fabricated document and the generator had not been removed by  

the defendant.  In the absence of such proof, there is every  

likelihood that the defendant having removed the generator on  

the basis of compromise between the parties, the appellant did  

not want to pursue the suit.  

: 3 :

All  in  all,  consideration  of  the  matter  by  the  

Disciplinary Committee  is proper and warrants no interference  

by us.

The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no  

order as to costs.

At  this  stage,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

submitted that there was no justification for the Disciplinary  

Committee  to  impose  costs  of  Rs.3,000/-  upon  the  appellant  

(complainant).  Learned counsel for the respondent agreed that  

the order of the Disciplinary Committee asking the Complainant  

to  pay  costs  of  Rs.3,000/-  may  be  set  aside.   We  order  

accordingly.  

.....................J. (R.M. LODHA)

.....................J. (JAGDEESH SINGH KHEHAR)

NEW DELHI; 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011