An advocate should not appear for the opposite party in a suit in which he has previously appeared for one of the parties, as it is improper and may raise suspicion in the mind of the original client.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS proceeding arises out of a complaint preferred by one M. Basappa (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) to the High Court alleging professional misconduct against Sri A. Gurubasappa (hereinafter referred to as we respondent), an Advocate practising at Rayadrug.

( 2 ) THE substance of the complaint is as follows the complainant filed O. S. No. 164 of 1958, on the tile of the Court of the District Munsif, Rayadrug, and engaged the. respondent as a Junior Advocate. A sum of Rs. 50. 00 was settled as fees for the respondent and it was paid. the respondent appeared for the complainant during the early stages of the suit; but when the Government was impleaded as the 3rd defendant, at the instance of defendants 1 and 2, he reported no instructions for the complainant without his knowledge and consent and filed a memo of appearance on behalf of the 3rd defendant and contested the suit against the complainant. It is further averred that we complainant had given a registration copy of a mortgage deed to the respondent for the purpose of filing it along with other documents in court, but that the respondents deliberately withheld that document.

( 3 ) BY its proceedings, dated 20/06/1961, the High Court directed the District Judge, to enquire into the complaint.

( 4 ) TWO charges were framed against the respondent: [1) that having appeared for the complainant in the suit, he reported no instructions without justifiable cause and appeared far the Government without the consent of the complainant; and (2} that he deliberately withheld the certified copy or the mortgage deed of 1928 with a view to help the defen-dants in the suit.

( 5 ) THE respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges. He averred that when he accepted the vakalat of the complainant, the Government was not a party to the suit; that he was subsequently appointed as Pleader doing Government wort in respect of all cases in the Court of the District Munsif, Rayadnig, in which the Government is a party; that he addressed the District Collector, Anantapur, informing him of the fact that he was already appearing for tne plaintiff in that suit; and requesting instructions in the matter; that the Collector instructed him to give up the vahalat for the plaintiff and to appear for the Government; that he brought these facts to the notice of the complamanr and obtained his consent to give up his vakalat; and that it was thereafter that he reported no instructions on behalf of the complainant and filed the memo of appearance on behalf of the Government. He averred that he acted bona fide, and that if his appearance for the Government was considered improper, he might be pardoned for the same, he denied the allegation that a registration copy of the mortgage deed of 1938 was entrusted to him by the complainant. He stated that he filed, into Court all the documents that the complainant gave him.

( 6 ) IN his report dated 11/12/1931, the learned District Judge of Anantapur, who enquired into the complaint, found that the complainant failed to substantiate the second charge. On the first charge he held that the respondent did obtain the consent of the complainant before giving up the vakalat for him and before he entered appearance for the Government. The District Judge also held that the respondent had expressed his regret, and that the interests of justice would be amply served by accepting his apology.

( 7 ) INITIALLY, before considering the merits of the complaint, it will be convenient to consider the question as to the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with cases of professional misconduct after the enactment of the Advocates Act (XXV of 1961),

( 8 ) THE Indian Bar Councils Act (XXXVIII of 1926), as is Indicated in its preamble, was enacted:--"to provide for the constitution and incorporation of Bar Councils for certain courts, to confer powers and impose duties on such Bar Councils, and to consolidate and amend the law relating to legal practitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document