ORDER

Chandrashekaraiah, President - The profession of Advocate is considered as a noble profession and an Advocate is expected to protect the interest of his client and fight for justice. But in the case on hand an Advocate has played fraud on his client, which made the client to suffer mental agony and hardship.

2. The parties in this order are referred to according to their position in the complaint filed before the District Forum

3. This Appeal is by the opposite party (for short, "OP") challenging the Order dated 17.2.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bangalore Urban III Additional, by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainant in part.

4. The case of the complainant is that she approached the OP for a legal advice as one late Sri Sharadchandra Manilal Rach, who was a prospective vendor, failed to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the flat agreed to be sold under the agreement dated 5.11.1999 during his lifetime. The OP after looking into the Agreement advised the complainant to file a suit for specific performance of the contract against the Legal Representative of the said late Sri Sharadchandra Manilal Rach. On the basis of the said advice, the complainant availed the services of the OP to file a suit for specific performance of the contract.

5. The further case of the complainant is that the OP told the complainant that in order to file suit for specific performance of the contract, a Court fee of Rs. 62,125 was required to be paid. In addition, he had also told the complainant to pay professional fee of Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 5,000 towards the legal expenses. According to the complainant, she has paid all the amounts to the OP as demanded by him. But the OP instead of filing a suit for specific performance of the contract has filed a suit for bare injunction by paying Court fee of only Rs. 25. The said suit was numbered as O.S. No. 8569/2000 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (C.C.H. 13). After filing of the said suit, the OP gave a xerox copy of the Order Sheet to the complainant in order to show that he has paid a sum of Rs. 62,125 towards Court fee.

6. The further case of the complainant is that the OP told the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 stating that it was required to be deposited in the said suit for the purpose of execution of Sale Deed. Believing the words of the OP the complainant paid the said amount. The said amount was acknowledged by the OP by issuing necessary receipt. Again on 3.2.2001 the OP told the complainant that another sum of Rs. 15,000 was required to be deposited in the said suit for transfer of the Suit Schedule Property to the name of the complainant. Believing that, the complainant obtained a Pay Order for the said sum from her Banker, namely the Central Bank of India, and gave the same to the OP. The OP instead of depositing the said amount in the Civil Court as told by him got discounted the Pay Order through some Agent.

7. From the records it is seen that the OP moved the Civil Court for conversion of the said suit from the suit for injunction to the suit for specific performance of the contract and got the case adjourned to 29.3.2004. From 29.3.2004 the case was posted to 29.6.2004. The case of the complainant is that in the evening of 29.6.2004 the OP informed the complainant that the case was adjourned to 23.8.2004. On 23.8.2004 in the morning hour itself the OP informed the complainant that the suit was adjourned to 23.9.2004. Since the OP informed the adjourned date of the case even before the commencement of the Court on 23.8.2004, the complainant suspected the bona fides of the OP and thereafter she went to the Civil Court and from the records of the case she came to know that the suit was dismissed as long back as on 12.4.2004 on the basis of a Memo filed by the OP stating that the suit was not pressed. The said Memo was not within the knowledge of the complainant. After coming to know of the fraud play