GUMAN MAL LODHA, J.

( 1 ) WHERE Sarva Shri Joshi, Lodha and Mridul failed can any one expect that Dallu Dhakar would succeed?

( 2 ) WHEN three eminent members of Bar Council, two of whom are adorning this Bench and third one equally eminent, adjudicates that land in dispute had some similarity in shape and measurements with the land in earlier litigation, causing grave suspicion against conduct of Advocate, can it be held that Dallu Dhakar unwary illiterate simple villager is expected to possess third sense having more knowledge awareness than Sarva Shri Joshi. Lodha and Mridul. is the real controversy in this case.

( 3 ) MR. H. C. Rastogi. counsel for the appellant and plaintiff Satvakam Advocate wants me to hold that in spite of the above glaring speaking feature of the case, I must hold that Dallu had no reasonable and probable cause to complain against the Advocate, who was exonerated by the Bar Council on the "benefit of doubt" theory, as if this benefit also cannot be extended to the Door undefended Tiller.

( 4 ) THIS is a plaintiffs civil second appeal, who was successful in the trial Court, but was unsuccessful in the first appellate Court, in his effort to obtai