Honble LAHOTI, J.–Shri D.P. Chadha, Advocate, the appellant, has been held guilty of professional miscount by Rajasthan State Bar Council and punished with suspension from practice for a period of five years. Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate was also proceeded against along with Shri D.P. Chadha, Advocate and he too having been found guilty was reprimanded. An appeal preferred by Shri D.P. Chadha, Advocate under Section 37 of the Advocate Act, 1961 has not only been dismissed but the Bar Council of India has chosen to vary the punishment of the appellant by enhancing the period of suspension from practice to ten years. The Bar Council of India has also directed notice to show cause against enhancement of punishment to be issued to Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate. The Bar Council of India has further directed proceedings for professional misconduct to be initiated against one Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate. Shri D.P. Chadha, Advocate has preferred this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act, for short).

(2). It is not disputed that Upasana Construction Pvt. Ltd. had filed a suit for ejectment based on landlord-tenant relationship against the complainant Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra, who was running a school in the tenanted premises wherein about 2000 students were studying. Shri D.P. Chadha was engaged by the complainant for defending him in the suit.

(3). It is not necessary to set out in extenso the contents of the complaint made by Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra to the Bar Council. It would suffice to notice in brief the findings concurrently arrived at by the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India constituting the gravamen of the charge against the appellant. While the proceedings in the ejectment suit were going on in the Civil Court at Jaipur, the complainant was contesting an election in the State of U.P. Polling was held on 18.11.1993 and again on 22.11.1993 on which dates as also on the days intervening, Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra was in Chilpur in the State of U.P. looking after the election and was certainly not available at Jaipur. Shri D.P. Chadha was in possession of a blank vakalatnama and a blank paper, both signed by the complainant, given to him in the first week of October, 1993. These documents were used for fabricating a compromise petition whereby the complainant has been made to suffer a decree for eviction. The blank vakalatnama was used for engaging Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the complainant, who got the compromise verified. Though the compromise was detrimental to the interest of the complainant yet the factum of compromise and its verification was never brought to the notice of the complainant inspite of ample time and opportunity being available for the purpose. The proceedings of the Court show a deliberate attempt having been made by three erring Advocates to avoid the appearance of the complainant before the Court, to prevent the complainant from gathering knowledge of the compromise filed in Court and creating a situation whereby the Court was virtually compelled to pass a decree though the Court was feeling suspicious of the compromise and wanted presence of complainant to be secured before it before the decree was passed.

(4). The proceedings of the Court and the several documents relating thereto go to show that earlier the plaintiff company was being represented by Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma, Advocate. An application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff discharging Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma from the case and instead engaging Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff and in place of Shri Vidya Bhushan Sharma, Advocate. On 17.11.1993 Shri D.P. Chadha was present in the Court though the defendant was not present when an adjournment was taken from the Court stating that there was possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties whereupon hearing was adjourned to 14.2.1994 for reporting compromise or framing of issues. On 20.11.1993, which was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document