Allegations made against a Judicial Officer by the client.

Rajamannar, C.J.

In this petition under section 10(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, the Petitioner was Dr.V.K. John, Advocate of this Court. The respondent was the advocate engaged by one T.N. Kuriakose, the defendant in two suits in the City Civil Court, Madras, O.S. Nos. 502 and 508 of 1957, filed by his wife, the daughter of the petitioner. An application was filed in this Court by the said T.N. Kuriakose for a transfer of the two suits to the file of this Court, in which certain allegations were made against Dr. John, the complainant, and the learned 5th Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, who had made the order in I.A. No. 78 of 1957, which was an application taken out by the complainant's daughter for the appointment of a Commissioner to take possession of certain articles in the possession of her husband, Mr. Kuriakose, including a motor car, and to take an inventory of the said articles and deliver them to her. The complainant alleged that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct in allowing the said allegations to be made in the affidavit of his client, Mr. Kuriakose. The petition was referred to the Tribunal of the Bar Council for enquiry. At the enquiry the following charges were framed against the respondent-advocate, namely:

“1. That you appearing as an advocate for the defendant in O.S. Nos. 502 and 508 of 1957 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, filed on behalf of your client Mr.T.N. Kuriakose, an affidavit sworn to by your client in support of the applications for transfer of the suits to the High Court of Madras, in which it was stated in paragraph 5;

‘I state that Dr. John has thrown up special parties for City Civil Court Judges’ and again in paragraph 6 it is stated as follows:

‘I state that Dr.V.K. John has a wide circle of political friends. Srimathi K. Manjubhashini a well known political worker, is a friend of Mr. and Mrs.V.K. John. I understand she is the wife of the Fifth Assistant Judge (now retired) Sri T.V. Subramania Ayyar, who heard my case. This learned Judge has also come to Dr. John's place on many occasions. I state that personal considerations have crept in in the making of the order in I.A. No. 78 of 1957 against me’.

2. And that in filing the said affidavit, you committed breach of professional duty in no satisfying yourself in the first instance that there were reasonable grounds lor making the allegations contained in the paragraphs above mentioned’”

The Tribunal of the Bar Council after enquiry have submitted a report that the respondent is not guilty of any professional misconduct and that the complainant had not proved the charges made by him against the respondent.

The facts leading up to the complaint have been set out in the report of the Bar Council Tribunal. It is sufficient for the disposal of this reference to mention only the salient facts. The complainant's daughter was married to Mr.T.N. Kuriakose in 1948. Subsequently differences arose between husband and wife which culminated in the institution of two suits by the wife. One suit, O.S. No. 502 of 1957 was for maintenance on the basis of desertion and cruelty by the husband. The second suit O.S. No. 508 of 1957, was for recovery of certain movables which were alleged to belong to her. Certain items of movable property were returned by Mr. Kuriakose to the wife as belonging to her; but in respect of other items he contested her exclusive claim. Pending disposal of the suits, an application was made by Mrs. Kuriakose I.A. No. 78 of 1957, mentioned earlier. On this application an ex parte order was made on 11th March, 1957, by the learned Fifth City Civil Judge in and by which he appointed a Commissioner, an advocate of this Court, not only to take possession of the car but also to take an inventory of the articles referred to in the wife's petition and to remove them from the possession of the defendant and to keep them in safe custody until further orders of Court. The Commissioner was given perm