O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated

15.03.2022 made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in OS.No.5174 of 2020.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.5174 of

2020, seeking for the relief of damages to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- against the revision petitioner herein and other defendants along with interest. The 1st defendant is the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, which is a statutory authority under the Advocates Act, 1961.

3. Mr.V.K.Sethukumar, 1st respondent/plaintiff is an advocate, who was originally enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala and later got himself transferred to the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry in the year 1983. The 7th defendant, Mr.T.Mahesh Kumar Bhandari has filed a complaint against the plaintiff to the Bar Council of Tamilnadu by alleging some professional misconduct. In the disciplinary proceedings in D.C.C.No.37/2012 taken by the Bar Council of Tamilnadu, by its order dated 22.06.2013, the 1st respondent/ plaintiff was found guilty of professional misconduct and he was reprimanded with certain directions. The 1st respondent/plaintiff-V.K.Sethukumar filed an Appeal before the Bar Council of India in DC. Appeal No.39 of 2013 and in the said Appeal, the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council was set-aside, by its proceedings dated 29.11.2014. Having got the above order in his favour from the Bar Council of India, V.K.Sethukumar has filed the present suit in OS.No.5174 of 2020. 4. Originally the said suit was filed before the High Court in its Original Side jurisdiction. Later, the suit was transferred to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai on the point of jurisdiction.

During the pendency of the said suit, the 1st defendant namely the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry has filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved over that, the 1st defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent appearing in person and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Bar Council of Tamilnadu is a Statutory Body and the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has been vested with the powers of the Civil Court, while conducting disciplinary proceedings on the complaints against the advocates for any alleged misconduct; as per Section 42 (2) of the Advocates Act, all proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Panel Code and every such Disciplinary Committee shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Sections 480, 482 and 485 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6.1. It is further submitted that such proceedings or orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee are indemnified against any legal proceedings before this Court by virtue of Section 48 of the Advocates Act; if the 1st respondent /plaintiff-V.K.Sethukumar is aggrieved due to the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu, he is entitled to prefer an Appeal before the Bar Council of India; if the order of the Bar Council of India is also not satisfactory to either of the parties, they are entitled to challenge the same before the Supreme Court of India; the above scheme in the Advocates Act would only show how much of sanctity is given to the orders of the Disciplinary Committee; neither the Committee nor its Members can be dragged to Court for having done anything in good faith while discharging their functions under the Advocates Act; while so, it is wrong on the part of the Civil Court to take the plaint on file; such procee