'REPORTABLE'

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15540 OF 2017

KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI ... Appellant

VERSUS

BALWANT SINGH THAKUR & ANR. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Respondent No.1 herein (the complainant) had lodged a

complaint with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter

referred to as the 'State Bar Council') on 19.12.2003 against

the appellant, who is an Advocate by profession, alleging

that the appellant had acted in a manner which amounts to

professional misconduct. On that basis, the complainant

pleaded that disciplinary action be taken against the

appellant. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a

Disciplinary Committee was constituted as the reply dated

03.02.2006 filed by the appellant was found not to be

satisfactory. After recording the evidence and hearing the

parties, the Disciplinary Committee passed final orders dated

09.12.2006 holding the appellant guilty of professional

misconduct and, on that basis, imposed punishment by

suspending his license of practice for a period of two years.

The appellant preferred statutory appeal against the said

decision of the State Bar Council before the Bar Council of

1

Digitally signed by

BALA PARVATHI

Date: 2017.12.16

12:38:42 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

C.A. No. 15540/2017

India (BCI). Vide the impugned judgment, the BCI has

affirmed the finding of the State Bar Council as far as

holding the appellant guilty of misconduct is concerned.

However, it has reduced the term of suspension of license

from 2 years to one year along with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be

paid to the complainant. Against this order of the BCI, the

present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

A neat plea which is taken by the learned counsel for

the appellant is that even if the allegations contained in

the complaint are taken to be correct on its face value,

these do not amount to committing any misconduct as per the

provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder.

We are, therefore, confined to this aspect in the present

appeal.

From the complaint which was lodged by the complainant

before the State Bar Counsel it can be discerned that his

allegation was that there was a family dispute, i.e., between

the complainant and his brothers, in respect of a property

which was in the name of their father and was an ancestral

property. It was stated that after the death of their father

on 11.10.1989, the said property was divided by the three

brothers equally. However, it transpired that before his

death, one of the brothers of the complainant influenced his

father and got registered the said property in the name of

the complainant's nephew, i.e., son of that brother, without

the consent of other brothers vide sale deed dated

2

C.A. No. 15540/2017

25.07.1989. The complainant had approached the appellant,

who is an Advocate, for filing the Suit for declaration to

declare that the sale deed was null and void as it was

prepared fraudulently. The appellant acted as his Advocate

and filed the Suit. In the said Suit, the parties settled

the matter as they agreed for declaring the sale deed as

ineffective and requested the Court for division of the

property. This resulted in passing of decree dated

24.10.1994 by the Court in which the complainant was declared

owner of 0.03 acres along with kutcha house out of the

disputed property. Till this stage, there is no quarrel and

there is no allegation against the appellant as far as his

conducting the said Suit is concerned. However, the

complainant further alleged that owing to family crises, the

complainant suffered some financial crunch in the month of

April, 2003, and he decided to sell his share of land to one

Mr. Narsinghmal, son of Surajmal, for a sum of Rs.30,000/-

and for the purpose of