The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

order dated 26-09-2022 passed by the Bar Council of India in

Revision Petition No.45 of 2022 directing suspension of the

petitioner from practicing law in any Court in the country during

the pendency of the revision petition.

2. Heard Sri P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner; Sri Shridhar Prabhu, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.1; Sri A.R. Goutham, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Kethan Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief, are as

follows:-

The petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar

Council of Karnataka and claims to have put in 28 years of

practice. He further claims that he was a former Chairman of

Karnataka State Bar Council and is a sitting Member of the said

Council. One Sri Basavaraju Murugesh Jarali another practicing

Advocate registers a complaint before the Karnataka State Bar

- 4 -

Council alleging certain acts of misconduct said to have been

committed by the petitioner making reference to certain legal

proceedings. The legal proceedings were concerning O.S.No.14

of 2008 and Regular Appeal No.334 of 2019. The allegation

against the petitioner in the said complaint was that a criminal

case had been registered against one Basavaraddi Venkateddi

Chulaki and other family members for offences punishable

under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 302 of the IPC, who had

engaged the services of the petitioner as their legal counsel.

On registration of the said crime, the accused therein were in

custody from the date of arrest till the date of their acquittal by

the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.39 of 2007,

which comes about on 28.03.2008. After the acquittal and

release of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki, claims to have

come to know that the petitioner had created certain General

Power of Attorney and sold the property without the knowledge

of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki.

4. This resulted in institution of a suit in O.S.No.14 of

2008 seeking declaration of the sale deed being null and void

and not binding on Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki. The

- 5 -

suit was decreed. This was challenged by the purchaser of the

said property in R.A.No.135 of 2012. The Appellate Court

remitted the matter back to the trial Court to implead

necessary parties and then pass appropriate orders. While

doing so, the present petitioner was impleaded into O.S.No.14

of 2008. The allegations against him were that he had misused

the signatures of Sri Basavareddi Venkateddi Chulaki. The suit

again came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein on

26-04-2019 and certain observations were made against the

petitioner.

5. The moment the decree comes to be passed, a

complaint

comes

to

be

registered

before

the

2^nd

respondent/Karnataka State Bar Council on 28-09-2021 by the

complainant 3 respondent No.3. Explanation was sought by the

2^nd respondent pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his

explanation refuting all those allegations made in the complaint

and also brought to the notice of the 2^nd respondent that he

had challenged the judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.14

of 2008 and R.A.No.334 of 2019 before this Court in

R'.S.A.No.100383 of 2021 and this Court had admitted the

- 6 -

appeal and stayed the operation of the judgments and decrees

of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The 2^nd

respondent noticing this fact, closed the proceedings against

the petitioner. On such closure of the proceedings, the

complainant approaches the 1^st respondent/Bar Council of India

invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 48A of the

Advocates Act, 1961 (8the Act9 for short). The 1^st respondent

appears to have sent a video conference link, who failed to

appear and without hearing the petitioner, on 26.09.2022 it

passed an order that the petitioner is barred from practicing in

any court of law during the pendenc