1. On .complaint being filed by one R, son of late Shri uddendu Saheb, the State Bar Council prima facie felt satisfied taking cognizance under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, registered Case No. 46 of 1991. After providing sufficient opportunities to the parties for leading evidence and hearing the State Bar Council vide its judgment and order dated 14.3.1993 was pleased to debar the respondent-appellant Advocate from practice a period of one.year under Section 35 (3) (c) of the Advocates Act, aggrieved against which the present appeal was preferred by the respondent Advocate. At the time of appeal the Bar Council was pleased to defer* the sentence awarded by the State Bar Council which has continued till this date. The complainant-respondent came up with the case that he had executed a registered sale deed with an option to re-purchase the property situate in village Deeravalli in favour of one Lanka Samba Siva Rao. However, he continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the said house property. By taking advantage of the sale deed, the vendee, Lanka Samba Siva Rao made attempts to forcibly occupy the subject-matter in collusion with the Police and consequently the complainant decided to file a suit seeking injunction against the said Shri Rao and engaged the respondent-appellant in the said suit with was registered as 87 of 1985. As a counter blast the said Shri Rao also filed a suit being O.S.No. 89 of 1985 in the Sub-Court, Gudivada, on the basis of the afore-mentioned sale deed shown the same to be a mortgage deed and for recovery of the mortgage:amount and thus foreclosure. In the said suit the respondent-complainant filed his written statement alleging the said document as sham and nominal. It is further alleged that in O.S.No. 87 of 1985 a cheque slip was issued by the Court under Section 24(b) of the A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.
2. The charge is that the respondent appellant did not prosecute his case diligently and neither informed him about the progress in the case nor made the deficiency good. While the suit was dismissed on 15.4.1986 for non-payment of deficit court fees, the-;fact was not disclosed to him. The stage of the suit was enquired on several occasions and also on 15.4.1986 on which date the written statement in O.S.No.89 of. 1985 was finalised and even consequent thereafter. He suddenly heard a rumour on 23.9.1991 that O.S.'No 87 of 1985 has been dismissed while O'.S. No. 89 of 1985 has been allowed. On verification the said rumour was found to be correct and it reveale that O.S. No. 87 of 1985 was dismissed as long back as on 15.4.1986 itself. On 24.9.1991 the complainant asked for return of the files of both the cases and also consent of the charged Advocate for engaging different Advocates. On enquiry it further revealed on 25.9.1991 that on 20.9.1991 in O.S.No.89 of 1985 two witnesses were examined and the suit was posted for 27.9.1991 for the examination of the third witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit. On 25.9.1991 the respondent Advocate gave the case papers relating to O.S.No.89 of 1985 and promised to report no instructions on 27.9.1991 at Gudivada. On 27.9,1991 the case was first adjourned on a request on behalf of the plaintiff to 4.10.1991 but after the defendant's side left the Court, .the case was advanced and P.W.3 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and cross-examined by the respondent Advocate after having promises to report on instructions.
3. The changed Advocate has blamed the complainant for non submission of the court fees and has denied the complaint case.
4. Parties were heard on 22.6.1995 assisted by their counsel and the judgment was reserved. In the abovenoted matter, written arguments too have been submitted by the parties. We have gone through the evidence on record, written arguments submitted by the appellant and the order passed by the State Bar Council. The mercy appeal too has been made by the daughter of the charged advocate who has recently joined the profession. The State Bar Council after haying scrutinised evidence on record has passed reasoned order with which we all agree and there seems to be no reason to differ. Thf State Disciplinary Committee has framed as many as eight issues and has made the following observations:-
a. When C.W.3 (complainant ) had asked for the consent on the vakalat to change the lawyer (charged Advocate) he should not have hesitated to walk out of the brief by giving consent.
b. It is unbecoming of an Advocate to keep the client in darkness about the progress of the case and in this case the charged Advocate kept the client in darkness about the cheque slip relating to the payment of court fees and dismissal of the suit which is reprehensible and the reasons given by R.W.I and R.W.2 about which the financial capacity of the complainant to pay the same are not acceptable.
c. The charged Advocate has cross examined the witnesses without instructions from his clients and without knowledge of his clients especially in view, of the fact that the complainant has withdrawn instructions and their confidence was shaken which was brought to the notice of the Bar Council. The allegation that Suit No.87 of 1985 was dismissed on 16.4.1986 for non payment of deficit court fees stands established. It is also accepted that the Advocate concerned kept his client in darkness about the fate of the case till 23.9.1991.
d. The charged Advocate himself admitted that he refused to file delay condonation petition for restoration of original Suit No. 87 of 1985 which is unbecoming of him.
e. The evidence of the complainant to the effect that the charged Advocate has not returned the record relating to Original Suit. 87 of 1985 has been accepted. It is further accepted that the charged Advocate promised to report no instructions on 27.9.1991 in Original Suit No.89 of 1985 in the Court of Sub Judge, Gudivada but corss-examined P.W.3 in the absence of the Complainant.
5. The aforesaid findings recorded by the State Bar .Council are based on evidence on record. There is no reason to differ with the same. In the circumstances, we affirm the order passed by the State Bar Council and direct the appellant to observe the.punishment awarded by the State Bar Council. The stay order granted by the Bar Council shall stand vacated.