Disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council for professional misconduct are not parallel proceedings to civil suits, and the Bar Council has jurisdiction to proceed with such enquiries despite the pendency of civil suits.

K. MADHAVA REDDY, Actg. C.J. :- This appeal by an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh is directed against the dismissal of his writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus against the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to stay the enquiry in C.C. No. 10 of 1981 on its file pending disposal of O.S. 12/81 and E.A. 16/79 in E.P. 7/79 on the file of the District Munsif at Jangaon. That writ petition came to be filed in the following circumstances.

2. Thakur Anantha Ram Singh, 2nd respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant or 2nd respondent') was the Municipal Toll tax contractor of Jangoan Municipality for the year 1960. The Municipality filed a suit O.S. 13/67 against him for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4.267-50 ps. The Appellant (petitioner) (hereinafter referred to as 'the advocate') was engaged as an advocate to defend him in this suit. That suit was decreed on 24-81967. For execution of that decree Jangaon Municipality filed E.P. No. 25/67' and attached a vacant site and house belonging to the 2nd respondent (judgment-debtor). A claim petition E.A. 41/67 was filed by the minor son of the and respondent through his concubine. That petition was allowed on 22-6-1968. The advocate's wife purported to purchase the house from the minor son on 26-12-1968 under an agreement of sale coupled with delivery of possession. The Municipality filed a regular suit O.S. 22/69 on 18-12-1969 to set aside the claim order impleading the 2nd respondent, his minor son, the advocate and his wife. On orders of the court, the advocate's name was deleted from the array of defendants. The claim suit was decreed on 6-10-1969. On 17-8-1980 the advocate obtained a retification deed from the 2nd respondent. The Municipality once again attached the house in E.P. 7/79. The advocate's wife file E.A. 16/79 inter alia contending that only the site was mortgaged to the Municipality and not the house and hence, if at all, only the site could be attached and not the house. On 22-12-1980 the 2nd respondent filed a suit O.S.12/81 on the file of the District Munsif Jangaon for declaration of title and that neither the advocate nor his wife was the owner thereof and all the documents set up by them were fabricated by the advocate. On the same set of facts, he submitted a complaint to the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh, alleging misconduct on the part of the advocate. That complaint was registered as C.C. 10/81 and notice issued to the advocate. On receipt of the notice, the advocate filed a defence statement and an application I. A. 1/82 to follow the procedure laid down for the trial of civil suits by framing issues for determination and requiring the complainant to file a list of witnesses as provided in R.1 of O.16 C.P.C. and then to record oral evidence. The advocate also filed I.A. 2/82 to drop the complaint Case No. 10/81 or in the alternative to stay the same pending disposal of O.S. 12/81 and E.P. 7/79 pleading that he would be grave prejudiced and he would nut to great and irreparable loss and injury. The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh after hearing the complainant and the advocate held that the enquiry need not be stayed and accordingly claimed I.A. 2/82. It is that order is challenged and a writ of mandamus is prayed for. Our learned brother Chennakesav Reddi, j. dismissed the writ petition in limine.

3. The advocate, while not disputing the jurisdiction of the Bar Council to entertain the complaint and enquire into it, questions the property of proceeding with the enquiry when the same issues are pending adjudication before a civil court. He also apprehends that the enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council consisting of three senior advocates may prejudice the court and any finding given by the Committee may influence the decision of the court. He also urges that the Bar Council being 'Obsessed with the time limit of one year for disposal of the matter before it' faile