IMPORTANT POINT
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

ORDER :

(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice dated 22-07-2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru (‘the Bar Council’ for short) and seeks quashment of the complaint so registered before the Bar Council by the 2nd respondent.

2. Sans details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is an Advocate practicing at Bangalore for the last 44 years. The petitioner becomes a counsel for the decree holder Sri Jinender Kumar Gandhi and his family members in Execution Case Nos.458 of 2007 and 459 of 2007 which were at that point in time pending before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru. In the Execution petitions, the 2nd respondent/A. Ramachadnra Reddy is the Judgment Debtor No.3, against whom decree of possession had been passed in O.S.Nos. 9077 of 1996 and 9078 of 1996, along with two other Judgment Debtors who were his parents. The decree was passed on 21-12-2006 and the appeal filed against the said decree by the Judgment Debtors before this Court comes to be rejected in the year 2009. The Judgment Debtors then challenge the decree before the Apex Court, which also comes to be dismissed in the year 2010. The decree, thus, attained finality. The Judgment Debtor No.3 then appears to have taken a contention that the suit schedule property does not exist as it is not identifiable and is said to have protracted the proceedings for decades before the Executing Court. Finally on 03-11-2021 in the final decree proceedings, delivery warrant was issued pursuant to which, the decree holders received possession of the property on 26-11-2021 through the Court Commissioner appointed by the Executing Court.

3. The 2nd respondent takes compensation amount, which the decree holders were supposed to receive it, by filing a false indemnity bond and an affidavit, in collusion with the Land Acquisition Officer is the allegation of the petitioner in the averment of the petition. It appears that against the receipt of compensation, proceedings were brought up before this Court which reached the Division Bench and the Division Bench directed all the transferee pendente lite, including the 2nd respondent to deposit the amount together with interest. This was not complied with and proceedings in C.C.C.No.280 of 2011 were instituted. It is the allegation that the Judgment Debtor No.3 has to deposit more than 75/- lakhs compensation towards the amount received by him.

4. The petitioner is an Advocate who appears for the decree- holders in the aforesaid execution cases. A complaint comes to be registered before the 1st respondent/Bar Council upon which a notice is sent to the petitioner seeking to reply as to why the matter should not be referred to the Disciplinary Committee. The matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Committee initiates D.C.E.No.29 of 2023 and again issued notice to the petitioner on 22-07-2023 calling upon him to file his defence. This is the impugned notice. The petitioner files his statement of defence. After participating in the proceedings to the stage of filing of defence, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court challenging entire proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council.

5. Heard Sri Paras Jain, party in-person, the petitioner; Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R. Neelakantaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent No.2.

6. The petitioner who appears in person submits that he was appearing for the decree-holders in Execution Case Nos. 458 of 2007 and 459 of 2007. Appearance by itself cannot be a professional misconduct. What is alleged is that the petitioner has entered into a transaction with the decree holders. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has never appeared for the 2nd respondent. There is no jural relationship of client and Advocate qua the 2nd respondent. If he has not appeared for a par