Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
M. Arumugam & Another - Appellants
Versus
C. Kumar & Others - Respondents
C.R.P(PD).Nos. 118, 124 of 2016 & CMP.Nos. 674, 679 of 2016
Decided On : 23-04-2019
For the Petitioner:K. Sridhar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ravi Kumar, Senior Counsel, Paul and Paul, Advocate.
Breach of the Rules governing advocates does not bar a suit and will not attract the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Headnote:
Professional Misconduct - Property Dispute - Rules Governing Advocates - 22A, 23 - The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions challenging the rejection of the Plaint on the ground of professional misconduct by the plaintiff. The court held that the breach of the Rules governing advocates does not amount to the suit being barred by any law and will not attract the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an advocate, was professionally involved in property disputes of late Mr. Arokianathan's family. He had undertaken to repair the premises of the suit property and spent a considerable amount on it. Subsequently, an oral agreement was made for the sale of the property to the plaintiff, but the defendants sold it to a fourth party, leading to the plaintiff filing a suit for specific performance and a declaration of nullity of the sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the breach of the Rules governing advocates does not bar the suit, and the plaintiff had not committed professional misconduct. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's actions constituted professional misconduct and if the suit should be rejected on that ground.
Ratio Decidendi: The breach of the Rules governing advocates does not amount to the suit being barred by any law and will not attract the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, a common order is being pronounced in the two Revisions. Both the Revisions emanate from the very same suit namely O.S.No.86 of 2010 pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. It is necessary to briefly allude to the facts that have been narrated in the plaint in order to fully appreciate the issue on hand which revolves around the professional etiquette of a lawyer vis-a-vis his clients.
The plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.86 of 2010 is an advocate of considerable standing. It is his case that he had got professionally involved in the property disputes which the family of late Mr.Arokianathan had to face. The plaintiffs case is that the father, Mr.Arokianathan whose children are the first defendant and the 3rd defendant as well as the husband of the second defendant, owned extensive lands in the villages of Mahaballpuram and Palyanur. The lands at palyanur which were agricultural lands was being cultivated by Mr.Veeraraghavan and three others who were giving a pittance of the produce to the family of Mr.Arokianathan. Apart from that, there were lands in Mamallapuram belonging to Mr.Arokianathan which were encroached and occupied by several persons. The plaintiff was particularly involved in the dispute relating to the properties on the southern side of the suit property as well as the properties on the west of the suit property. It appears that one Selvaraj and Anthonyraj had filed suit before the District Munsif's Court, Chenglapattu in the year 1994 which was subsequently transferred to the District Munsif's Thirukkalukundram and renumbered as O.S.No.247/96 against the first defendant and the husband of the second defendant claiming 0.02 cents in the occupation of Pastor Samidurai. The first defendant and the second defendant's husband had approached the plaintiff and sought his professional service for defending the suit property.
3. Around the said time, the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property and at the time of taking possession, the property was in a very bad condition, unsuitable for habitation. The plaintiff had undertaken to repair the said premises with the consent of defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff would submit that apart from the suit O.S.No.247/96 there was other suit namely O.S.No.256/96 on the file of the DMC, Thirukazhumkundram. That apart, there was the suit O.S.No.272/96 by the defendants 1 to 3 and they were represented by the plaintiff against the said Selvaraj and Anthonyraj and ultimately the suit was decreed in their favour. Yet another suit was filed by one Mr.Padman against the first defendant for a bare injunction in O.S.No.38 of 2000. The first defendant in turn had filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2001 for an injunction against the said Mr.Padman on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Thirukkalukundram. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that he has been representing the defendants 1 to 3 as their counsel in proceedings at different fora.
4. The plaintiff after taking on lease the property of the defendants in the year 1994, had settled his family in the suit property, the plaintiff had spent over a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards expenses for making the building habitable. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was an understanding that the property which is in the occupation of the plaintiff would be ultimately sold to him for a reasonable price as it was only the plaintiff who got the properties in Paiyanur village released from the custody of the Mr.Veeraraghavan and made it free from all encrumbrances. The plaintiff defended several suits for the defendants and made all the properties involved thereinfree of all encrumbrance. All these was on account of the plaintiff dedication and hardwork.
5. In or about 2003-2004; the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were trying alienate their properties and therefore since he was in occupation
