This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for damages instituted by Tribhuwan Nath Misra, an Advocate, of Sitapur, against them.

The only question in this appeal is whether the suit filed by Tribhuwan Nath Misra is maintainable or not. The trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable while the lower appellate Court had taken the view that the suit instituted by Tribhuwan Nath Misra was maintainable in a Civil Court.

The plaintiff instituted the suit with the allegations that he was a practicing lawyer and that Vidya Prakash Srivastava, Advocate, and Udai Raj Singh Advocate were jealous of the plaintiff and bore ill-will towards him. It was asserted that the said persons who were arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2, in collusion with Smt. Mahdei, wife of Maikoo, Chhotey Lalj and At dul Majid concocted a false case against the plaintiff and made a complaint to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh that Tribhuwan Nath Misra had snatched away a draft of a criminal complaint prepared by Vidya Prakash Srivastava and perused and corrected by Udai Raj Singh on behalf of Smt. Mahdei which was going to be given to the Superintendent of Police Sitapur against some rel ations of the plaintiff and others from beating her husband and his brother Chandra Bhal and Chhotey Lal and for preventing Smt. Mahdei from going to police station Hargaon to lodge the report there by the assailants of her husband. It was asserted that the entire story was concocted and that the charges leveled in the complaint to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh against the plaintiff were malicious and without reasonable and probable cause. It was asserted that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council who had issued notice to the plaintiff and after that acquitted the plaintiff by its judg ment dated 5-9-1971. It was asserted that -the appeal filed against the judgment of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was dismissed by the Bar Council of India by its judgment dated 19-10-1972.

The plaintiff asserted that because of the institution of the said proceeding before the Bar Council the plaintiff suffered mental agony during the pendency for injury to his reputation and feeling which he had assessed at Rs. 3. 200/ -. The plaintiff also claimed a sum of Rs. 2. 000/- towards expenses incurred by him during the proceedings before the Bar Council as also loss of time entail ed by the proceedings. In the prayer in the plaint, it was specified that the plaintiff claimed a decree of Rs. 5. 200/- in respect of damages out of which Rs. 3. 200/- was claimed as general damages and Rs. 2,000/- as special damages.

The defendant contested the suit and pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court.

The Order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has been filed. It discloses that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was of the view that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that Sri Tribhuwan Nath Misra had snatched the papers as asserted in the complaint to the Bar Council and it was further of the opinion that no case of professional misconduct had been made out against Sri Tribhuwan Nath Misra uor any other misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council drew a distinction between misconduct which is of a purely professional character and misconduct which also lies within the ambit of criminal law. It observed that "in the former case, the special Tribunal contemplated by the Bar Council Act, is a proper one to deal exclusiv ely with purely professional delinquencies but in the latter class of misconduct, the special Tribunal under the said act, will not in all cases usurp the function of a Civil Court or Criminal Court. "

The Bar Council of India in its appellate order found that "the evidence in the case does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the charge of profes sional misconduct levelled against the Advocate. " Aggrieved by the order of the lower ap