Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.- The appellant Shri Manak Lal was an advocate practising at Sojat. A complaint was filed against him under S.13 of the Legal Practitioners Act by Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi. It was alleged that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and the complainant requested that suitable action be-taken against him in that behalf. Since the appellant was not a Pleader or a Mukhtear but an advocate of the High Court of Rajasthan the complaint was Sent for enquiry to the tribunal nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan under S. 10 (2) of the Bar Councils Act. The tribunal held an enquiry, recorded evidence and came to the unanimous conclusion that the appellant "was guilty of professional misconduct in having got a false stay order written by the clerk by improper means and thereby he managed to take an illegal and undue advantage for his clients and therefore deserves to be punished for, the same." When this report was received by the High Court, the matter was argued before the Court. In the result the High Court agreed with the findings made by the tribunal and directed that the appellant should be removed from practice. It is against this order that by special leave the appellant has come to this Court.

2. The facts giving rise to the complaint against the appellant are very few. It appears that there was a dispute concerning Jhalra well and certain agricultural plots surrounding the well between Pukhraj and others on the one hand and Dr. Prem Chand and others on the other. These parties were described in the said proceedings as Party No. 1 and Party No. 2 respectively. The appellant was the counsel for Party No. 1. As a result of this dispute the police presented a report in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sojat that the dispute was likely to cause breach of peace and suggested that proceedings under S.145, Criminal P.C., should be taken. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate drew out a preliminary order on 5th July 1951, (Ex. A-1). By this order both the parties were called upon to put in their written statements as regards their claims to possession of the property in dispute. The learned Magistrate also passed an order attaching the property in dispute pending the decision of the proceedings under S.145. This was followed by another order passed on 9th August 1951, that the crop which was on the field should be auctioned, its price deposited in court and the land itself should be given for cultivation to the highest bidder for the next year. It appears that the hearing of the case was fixed for 21st August 1951. Members of the Party No. 1 were aggrieved by these orders and on their behalf the appellant preferred a revision application against these orders in the court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, on 13th August 1951. The appellant presented another petition before the learned Sessions Judge on 29th August 1951. In this petition it was alleged that the crop which stood on the fields in question belonged to the cultivators described as Party No. 1, that the crop was getting spoiled and that the cultivators would be considerably prejudiced if they were dispossessed from their lands at that stage. On these allegations the application prayed that an order should be passed not to auction the crop as well as the right of future cultivation and that liberty should be given to the cultivators to go to the well and to look after the crop pending the final disposal of their revision application before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge was not apparently inclined to grant ex parte interim stay and so on the same day he directed that notice of the revision application should be given to the other party and called upon the applicants to furnish talbana and a copy of the application. The case then stood adjourned for hearing on 6th September 1951. On 6th September 1951,when the case was called out before the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant was present. The le