JUDGMENT

SHINGHAL, J.:—As this appeal under Sec. 38 of the Advocates Act. 1961, must succeed on three short points, it will be enough to state those facts which bear on them.

2. Appellant Ram Bharosey Agarwal was practising as an advocate in Bulandshahr. Uttar Pradesh. He was engaged by respondent Har Swarup Maheshwari, on behalf of his daughter Smt. Munni Devi, to pursue her application against her husband Jai Narain under Section 488, Cr. P. C. in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate. Bulandshahr. The case was decided in favour of Smt. Munni Devi on September 5, 1963, and a maintenance allowance was granted to her. When the order was put into execution, Har Swarup Maheshwari engaged another lawyer to prosecute the execution application. In those proceedings the property of Jai Narain was attached. His father claimed that the attached property belonged to him and his application to that effect was alleged to have been filed by the appellant. The first charge against the appellant was that he was guilty of professional misconduct in accepting a brief on behalf of Jai Narains father. Jai Narain filed an application for reconsideration of the order of maintenance, and examined three