Modi, J.—This is a complaint by one Ramratan Maheshwari, resident of village Deshnok, Tehsil Bikaner, for professional misconduct against Shri Shridhar Kalla, an advocate of this Court. Shri Kalla has been practising in Jaipur for the last three or four years but was regularly practising in the courts at Jodhpur up to 1952.

2. The allegations made by the petitioner in his petition dated the 28th October, 1953, may be briefly summarised as follows. The petitioners case is that he had engaged Shri Kalla in three cases from 1948 onwards. In the first place, he had engaged Shri Kalla to file a suit against Tarachand and Leelchand sons of Khivraj of Barmer for Rs. 1098/4/6-in the court of the Munsiff, Jodhpur City, and that he had paid him a sum of Rs. 125/- on account of his professional fees and expenses (Rs. 50/-by way of remuneration and Rs. 75/- for court-fees, and certain incidental expenses) in connection with this suit on or about the 11th March, 1948. Ramratans case further is that immediately after this engagement he had personally given all the original documents to Shri Kalla to be filed with the plaint and that a plaint had also been prepared by the latter and that he had signed that and a Vakalatnama as well, and gave all these papers to Shri Kalla for presenting them in court. The petitioners complaint is that Shri Kalla filed this suit (No. 255 of 1951) as late as the 2nd July, 1951 (as a matter of fact the suit was filed on the 2nd June, 1951, which was the last working day before the summer vacation in 1951, and that the plaint was filed on a court-fee of Rs. 5/- only and without the original documents or even a list of documents and further that the plaint which was actually presented in court in 1951 by Shri Kalla did not bear the petitioners signature nor did the power of attorney filed with the plaint bear his signature. The petitioners case is that Shri Kalla had not filed the suit for a long time for some reason best known to him, and that as the petitioner was not satisfied with the answers given by Shri Kalla to his verbal and other inquiries made by him from time to time, he arranged to serve Shri Kalla with a registered notice through another counsel Shri Nandlal Advocate of Bikaner, which was received by Shri Kalla on the 3rd June, 1950 (vide postal acknowledgment Ex. 4), and that he further gave a registered letter (vide its copy Ex. 8) on the 7th March, 1951, which was also received by Shri Kalla on the 11th March, 1951 (vide postal acknowledgment Ex. 9) and that later when he came to Jodhpur and inspected the file on the 26th October, 1953, he came to know of the gross-negligence, misappropriation and misconduct committed by Shri Kalla in connection with this case in the above mentioned respects. The petitioner further stated that Shri Kalla had never returned the original documents to him nor were they available on the court record. In the second place, the petitioners complaint was that he had engaged Shri Kalla to file a suit against Hiralal Bhanwarlal and certain other persons (suit No. 25 of 1948-49), in the court of District Judge, Jodhpur, also early in 1948, and that in connection with that suit he had paid Shri Kalla a sum of Rs. 101/8/- to defray witness expenses, apart from the latters fees and other incidental costs. His grievance is that as he had brought all his witnesses and paid for them himself, this money remained with Shri Kalla and that he did not return the same. The last allegation is that the petitioner had also engaged Shri Kalla to file a suit against the firm Magumal Dholandas (Suit No. 408 of 1950) in the court of the Munsiff, Jodhpur City. The suit was filed against Sindhi Jiwandas proprietor of the said firm and was for a sum of Rs. 1280/- and was actually instituted on the 3rd July, 1950. The petitioners grievance is that in addition to the sum of Rs. 101/8/- which remained with Shri Kalla, as already stated in connection with the second case above, he further gave a sum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document