B.H. Marlapalle, J.

1. 1. Heard Shri Patil with Shri Muley, learned Advocates for the petitioner and Shri Naik, the learned Advocate for respondents.

2. 2. Rule.

3. 3. Shri Naik waives service.

4. 4. As the challenge in this petition involves purely legal question to be decided, the parties were heard at length so as to decide the petition at admission stage itself. Hence, the rule was taken up for hearing forthwith.

.5. It appears that there was a dispute between the Respondents and one Shri Ganpat Pandurang Chavan and the dispute landed in the Court of law. The Respondent No. 1 addressed a notice on 24th August, 1998 to Shri Chavan, through Shri S. S. Barahate, the present Petitioner, who was an Advocate for Shri Chavan. However, the notice did not

.stop on making allegations against Shri Chavan but indeed it proceeded to level some slanderous allegations against Shri Barahate, Advocate. Consequently, Shri Barahate filed Special Civil Suit No. 531 of 1998 on or about 9th October, 1998 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Aurangabad and the same was converted in to Regular Civil Suit No. 996 of 2000. It is presently pending before the learned 2nd Joint Civil