Gross negligence in filing the bill of costs, causing potential loss to the client, and unjustified demand for payment constitute professional misconduct and other misconduct, warranting removal from the rolls for five years.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.

( 1 ) MR. P. , who is an Advocate-on-Record of this Court and who will hereafter be called the advocate, acted for the Board of Trustees of the Dakhina Parswa Math of Puri through its Executive Officer respondent No. 2 (b) in Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1954. As such Advocate he entered appearance on 9/11/1957. The said appeal was heard on the 2nd and 6th of May, 1958, and by the judgment pronounced by this Court on 20/05/1958, it was dismissed with costs in favour of respondent No. 2 (b ). The Advocate had briefed Mr. J. as a senior Advocate to lead him at the hearing of the appeal. It appears that the client had paid the Advocate Rs. 500. 00 on the eve of the hearing of the appeal and the senior Advocate was paid Rs. 1,000. 00 direct by the client. The Bill of Costs and vouchers had to be filed by the Advocate on behalf of his client within six weeks from the date of judgment under Order 40 Rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules (hereinafter called the rules ). The said period expired during the summer vacation of the Court. After the summer vacation, the Court reopened on 4/08/1958. Meanwhile, on 20/05/1958 after the Judgment was delivered by this Court, the Advocate wrote to his client informing him about the result of the appeal and intimating to him that the bill of costs had to be filed. On 28/06/1958, he again wrote to his client and called for Rs. 60. 00 to meet the necessary expenses in the matter of presenting the bill of costs. This amount was paid to him at Puri on 26/07/1958, and the Advocate passed a receipt in that behalf. He however, took no further action in the matter until about 9/01/1959, when it appears that he inspected the Court records in order to be able to prepare a draft bill. A bill was accordingly prepared by him and it was presented in Court on 19/05/1959. Since the bill was obviously filed beyond the period prescribed by Order 40 Rule 12, the office returned the bill to the Advocate. In ordinary course, the Advocate should have filed an application requesting that the delay made in filing the bill should be condoned. , but he seems to have taken no further action in that behalf. Even so, on 18/05/1960, the Advocate asked for and received Rs. 200. 00 from his client. It appears that Mr. Banamdar was the Executive Officer of respondent No. 2 (b) when the Advocate was engaged by him, but later, Mr. Misra succeeded to the office of the Executive Officer and the amount of Rs. 200. 00 was paid to the Advocate by Mr. Misra; a receipt for this payment had also been passed it is difficult to understand why the Advocate asked for this amount. During this period the client wrote to the Advocate enquiring about the bill of costs but received no reply. When Mr. Misra realised that the Advocate was taking no action in the matter of presenting the bill of costs and obtaining orders thereon, he gave notice to the Advocate on 9/01/1961, discharging him from his engagement. On the 12/01/1961 he also applied to this Court to cancel the Advocates Vakalat and to condone the delay made in the filing of the bill of costs. On 12/03/1961, the Advocate agreed that his client can engage Mr. Verma. The applications made by the client for canceling the Advocates Vakalat and for condoning the delay made in the filing of the bill of costs came up before the learned Judge in Chambers. They had, however, to be adjourned from time to time in order to enable the Advocate to appear before the learned Chamber Judge. Ultimately, on 9/01/1962, the learned Judge condoned the delay made in the presentation of the bill of costs without prejudice to the right of the judgment debtor to plead that the execution in respect of the bill of costs is barred by limitation. He also ordered that the papers should be submitted to the Honble the Chief Justice for taking action against the Advocate for the cross negligence shown by him in the conduct of the proceedings in this case. The Advocate was also directed to hand over all th