Judgment

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. This appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2581 of 2005), preferred Under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is directed against order dated 30.6.2002, passed by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India (B.C.I.) whereby the Appellant Chancier Prakash Tyagi, Advocate, has been held guilty of violation of Rule 33 of Section II contained in Part VI of Bar Council of India Rules. Consequently, Appellant has been suspended from practicing for a period of one year, and directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the Respondent-complainant and rest of the amount is directed to be deposited with the Advocates' Welfare Fund of B.C.I. The Appellant is further directed to pay cost of Rs. 3,000/- vide order passed on review application, dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee, which is also challenged through special leave in the connected Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2005.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

3. Succinctly, factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent-complainant Benarsi Das instituted case No. 137 of 1994 before District Judge, Saharanpur, for his appointment as guardian of his grandson Komal Arora Under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as complainant's son Avtar Singh (father of the minor Komal Arora) had died in the year 1992. In said case, Appellant Chander Prakash Tyagi, advocate, was engaged as his counsel. It is alleged by the complainant that the Appellant did not contest his case properly as he was in collusion with the "opponents", namely, Dilawar and Nazim, sons of Raja Hasan, and the petition for appointment of guardian was dismissed for non-prosecution on 2.1.1995. The complainant had shown all papers relating to the case to the Appellant and paid his fee. Later, Appellant-advocate accepted brief of Dilawar for filing suit against complainant's grandson Komal Arora in subsequently filed proceedings. On this, complainant gave notice to the Appellant on 30.7.1998 to get himself disengaged from Dilawar in suit Nos. 565 of 1995 and 573 of 1995, instituted before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saharanpur, against Komal Arora and others. However, he did not care, on which complainant made a complaint, supported by affidavit and other papers, to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (for short "the State Bar Council").

4. The State Bar Council registered above complaint as Disciplinary Case No. 13 of 1999 and issued notice to Appellant Chander Prakash Tyagi (Advocate). In his reply before Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, the Appellant admitted that he was engaged by Dilawar and Nazim in suit Nos. 565 of 1995 and 573 of 1995 against Komal Arora. However, he pleaded that no sooner he came to know that he had been counsel for Komal Arora in the earlier proceedings, he withdrew his Vakalatnama from the above mentioned suits. It is further pleaded by him that the case for appointment of guardian and the suit for specific performance of contract were of different nature, and he did not commit any misconduct. He further pleaded that the Respondent-complainant had taken papers back from him, as such, he was not obliged thereafter to prosecute his case No. 137 of 1994, which was dismissed on 2.1.1995 for non-prosecution.

5. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council dismissed the complaint, vide order dated 6.6.2000, in view of the fact that the advocate (present Appellant) had withdrawn his Vakalatnama from the two suits, and accepted the plea that the two proceedings, one filed on behalf of Komal Arora and the other two filed against him, were of different nature.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, the complainant, resorting to Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, preferred D.C. Appeal No. 36 of 2001 before the Bar Council of India. The Disciplinary Committee of B.C.I., after hearing both the sides, opined that Chander Prakash Tyagi, Advocat