Skip to content


In Re: a First-grade Pleader - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad17
AppellantIn Re: a First-grade Pleader
Excerpt:
legal practitioners act - act xviii of 1879, sections 13, 14--petition containing disrespectful language presented by co-plaintiff who was also a pleader in the court--act committed by a suitor. - 1. there is no doubt the language used in the petition was highly improper, and in returning the petition for amendment, the judge adopted the proper course. as no further immediate action was taken and the petition was not represented, the matter should have been allowed to drop and not resuscitated after the lapse of several months.2. further, we are of opinion that steps should not have been taken against the petitioner under the legal practitioners act go long as it was possible to take notice of the act in any other way, as one committed by a suitor. [see the case of in re wallace l.r. 1 p.c. 283. it may be added that the act of the petitioner was not per se sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to be a pleader.3. we therefore dismiss the charge.
Judgment:

1. There is no doubt the language used in the petition was highly improper, and in returning the petition for amendment, the Judge adopted the proper course. As no further immediate action was taken and the petition was not represented, the matter should have been allowed to drop and not resuscitated after the lapse of several months.

2. Further, we are of opinion that steps should not have been taken against the petitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act go long as it was possible to take notice of the act in any other way, as one committed by a suitor. [See the case of In re Wallace L.R. 1 P.C. 283. It may be added that the act of the petitioner was not per se sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to be a pleader.

3. We therefore dismiss the charge.


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