Section 35 of the Advocates Act for misconduct of an Advocate = the Civil Court is not competent to take any disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act for misconduct of an Advocate.

CRP 591 / 2013

CRPSR 35761 / 2012



This revision invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is fundamentally misconceived. 
The revision petitioner is appearing as a party-in-person.
O.S.No.13 of 2000 was filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of the suit amount from the petitioner herein and other respondents, the petitioner herein being the third defendant in the suit.  
The petitioner filed I.A.No.709 of 2012 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 35 of the Advocates Act, against respondents 1 to 3 herein to declare the Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff - Sri G.L.V Ramana Murthy as unqualified to proceed in the matter, alleging that the said Advocate was having beneficiary dealings and monetary transactions with the plaintiff; that he was penalized by imposition of a fine of Rs.750/- in the Guntur District Consumer Forum in C.D.667/93 which was confirmed by Appellate Court.
The Court below rightly rejected the application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application to interdict a counsel who is continuing on the rolls of the Bar Council, from pursuing his professional obligations and held that 
the Civil Court is not competent to take any disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act for misconduct of an Advocate.   
This Court concurs. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs. 

Date: 15.02.2013



                                Date: 15.02.2013        


Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.