Skip to content


inamul Haq Vs. Faizul Hasan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.268
Appellantinamul Haq
RespondentFaizul Hasan
Excerpt:
legal practitioners act (xviii of 1879), section 13 - pleader--misconduct. - .....or on behalf of the petitioner and got possession of certain documents, that subsequently faizul hasan accepted a vakalatnama from the defendants and that although faizul hasan afterwards withdrew from both sides, the result of his action was that the petitioner's secrets were disclosed to, and his evidence got into the hands of and was made use of by, the opposite side. the munsif inquired into the matter at the time and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not shown that these documents had ever been in the hands of faizul hasan or that he had disclosed the evidence or secrets of the plaintiff to the opposite side. we have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and he has referred us to the evidence in support of the charge he brings against the pleader. we.....
Judgment:

1. This matter cornea before us under the Legal Practitioners Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that Faizul Hasan, a Pleader, was engaged by him in a certain case before the Munsif of Deoband, that he received instructions from or on behalf of the petitioner and got possession of certain documents, that subsequently Faizul Hasan accepted a vakalatnama from the defendants and that although Faizul Hasan afterwards withdrew from both sides, the result of his action was that the petitioner's secrets were disclosed to, and his evidence got into the hands of and was made use of by, the opposite side. The Munsif inquired into the matter at the time and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not shown that these documents had ever been in the hands of Faizul Hasan or that he had disclosed the evidence or secrets of the plaintiff to the opposite side. We have heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and he has referred us to the evidence in support of the charge he brings against the Pleader. We need hardly say that had it been shown to us that Faizul Hasan or any other Pleader had knowingly accepted a vakalatnama after he had been engaged by the other side, we should deal with him with the utmost severity, even though it might not have been shown that he had been guilty of the gross and fraudulent action disclosing the case of his first client to the second. There is no doubt that Faizul Hasan did accept a vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, and there is no doubt that he subsequently accepted a vakalatnama for the opposite party. His defence is that it was done by mistake. On the whole, we think that we must accept this explanation of what occurred. At the same time, we wish to point out that, in our opinion, it is a mistake which ought never to have occurred. Every practitioner is bound to know every case in which he accepts a vakalatnama, and before he accepts another vakalatnama he is bound to see that he has not been already engaged on the other side. In our opinion, to recklessly sign vakalatnamas without making proper note thereof is very nearly approaching misconduct on the part of a Pleader. We think, however, that it is unnecessary to take any further action in the present case. We accordingly dismiss the application but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //