An advocate's legal service rendered competently precludes dismissal of a complaint for misconduct when the client is satisfied with the services provided.

ORDER :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the proceedings in DCE No.54/2022 (Annexure-P) before the respondent No.1 referred to it by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Advocates Act.

2. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be an Advocate having legal profession in Bangalore for more than 32 years and having unblemished record throughout his professional career. The respondent No.3 has approached the petitioner seeking legal services in respect of the filing of vakalath named on behalf of respondent No.3 and to contest the suit on merits in O.S.No.4813/2016 before the Additional City Civil Judge, at Bengaluru, wherein the respondent No.3 herein was the defendant No.5. It is further stated in the writ petition that the said suit came to be rejected upon the application filed by the defendants therein under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs in the suit filed RFA No.1652/2019 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 16.01.2020 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. This Court directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 30.03.2020. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 sought legal advice from the petitioner herein as to remove the encroachment by third parties at her site and as such the petitioner and respondent No.3 made spot inspection. In this regard, the petitioner has quoted Rs.1,00,000/- as legal fees including filing writ petition before this Court, and as such respondent No.3 issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each. The petitioner has realized one cheque for sum of Rs.50,000/- and another cheque was returned to the respondent No.3 to make online payment of Rs.50,000/- to the account of the petitioner. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner in all received Rs.1,00,000/- as legal fee.

3. It is further stated in the writ petition that on account of lockdown during Covid pandemic, the petitioner was not able to file vakalathnama before Trial Court in Original Suit as the Courts were not functioning regularly. However, the petitioner advised the respondent No.3 to prefer Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Judgment and Decree in RFA.No.1652/2019. The respondent No.3 has contacted an advocate at Hon'ble Supreme Court for filing appropriate petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and requested the petitioner to co-ordinate with the learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for filing of petition and such requirements. Petitioner has produced the interaction of briefing the matter to the learned counsel at Delhi as per Annexure-A series. The petitioner has supplied all the relevant documents with brief notes with grounds to be urged in the Special Leave Petition, to the learned counsel appointed by the respondent No.3 at Delhi. Thereafter, SLP No.10692/2020 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure-B), Hon'ble Supreme Court, stayed the further proceedings before the trial Court. Thereafter, no proceedings were continued before the Trial Court and finally Hon'ble supreme Court by order dated 14.09.2021 (Annexure-C), allowed the petition preferred by the respondent No.3 and as such confirmed the order of rejection of the suit in O.S.No.4813/2016. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has not filed vakalathnama before the trial Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has prepared representation seeking removal of encroachment by the third parties, and thereby addressed to the BBMP and Police Commissioner Bengaluru at the instance of the