Nawal Kishore, C.J.—This is an application by Amarchand for action being taken against Mr. Manaklal Advocate of Sojat under section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The petition is based on a number of grounds, most of which are common to the parties, and these may be stated at once before coming to the points on which the parties are at divergence. The applicant Amarchand contacted the respondent for the purpose of instituting a suit for the recovery of Rs. 931/- and also for the possession of a well. On 31st of July 1947 (Sawan Vad 11 Samwat 2003) he appears to have delivered to him the relevant papers in connection with this case and also executed a power of attorney in favour of the respondent. In this power of attorney, which is Ex. P-3 on the record, the sum of Rs. 75/- is mentioned as having been settled on account of remuneration. The word "Adaa" was struck out and the word "Tai" written on the top of it showing thereby that nothing whatsoever had been paid out of the remuneration settled between the parties. The next sentence which specifically deals with the amount remaining unpaid was allowed to remain blank. It appears that the plaint was drafted the next day but it remained in the office of the respondent till 22nd of November 1947 when it was presented in court. It may be stated that on a suit for the recovery of Rs. 93/1 a total court-fee stamp of Rs. 59/4 was required but the plaint was presented on a stamp of Rs. 9/4 only. The result was that no further proceedings could be taken till the deficient court-fee stamp was made up. The Court adjourned the case to 11th of December 1947, then to 19th of December 1947, and again to 9th of January, 1948 and continuously thereafter till 14th of July, 1948 giving opportunity after opportuni:y to the respondent to make up deficiency! in court fee stamp. From the order-sheets, it appears that the respondent himself took all these adjournments for that specific purpose. Ultimately, on 14th of July 1948 when the Court found that inspite of so many opportunities having been afforded to the respondent, court-fee stamp was not being made up, it had no alternative but to reject the plaint and ordered ! accordingly. From the order-sheets, it appears that the respondent himself took all these adjournments for that specific purpose. Ultimately, on 14th of July 1948 when the Court found that inspite of so many opportunities having been afforded to the respondent, court-fee stamp was not being made up, it had no alternative but to reject the plaint and ordered ! accordingly. Before proceeding further it may be stated that on 21st of January 1948, the respondent wrote a letter to the applicant, Ex.P-1 on the record, stating as under :— ^^iskh vHkh rd vkbZ ugh] vkus ij bryk nsnh tkosxh vkSj leu tkjh djk fn;s tkosaxs lks eqrys jgksA^^ At the end of the letter there is a note to the following effects : — ^^ :i;k 25@& cdk;k gS lks Hkst nsoksA^^ This letter shows that inspite of the fact that from the 22nd of November 1947 till the 14th of July, 1948 which covers a period of nearly eight months, there had been a large number of adjournments and every time dates had been fixed in the case, the respondent chose to write to the applicant that no dates whatsoever had been fixed and that he would inform him as soon as this was done. After the rejection of the plaint on 14th of July 1948, the applicant came to Sojat and found that the respondent was out. The same day he got a petition written by Amarlal, petition-writer to the effect that the suit had been dismissed on account of the deficiency in court-fee not having been made up and that he was now putting in the necessary court-fee stamp. According to the applicant, this petition was torn to pieces by him when on being read out, it was found that the petition writer had written something in it which threw all the blame for not making up the deficiency in court-fee stamp upon him. On 17th of August 1948, the present application was filed in this Court and the version put forward by the applicant is that out of the total sum of Rs 75/- agreed to be paid on account of remuneration to the respon-dent, Rs. 50/- was to be paid at the time of the institution of the suit and Rs. 25/- after the pronouncement of the judgment. He paid another sum of Rs. 45/- to the respondent later on making a total of Rs. 50/- was to be paid at the time of the institution of the suit and Rs. 25/- after the pronouncement of the judgment. He paid another sum of Rs. 45/- to the respondent later on making a total of Rs. 120/- and thus leaving the sum of Rs. 70/- with him for the purpose of affixing a court-fee stamp on the plaint and incurring other miscellaneous expenses. It was alleged that the plaint was presented on 22nd of November 1947 on deficient court-fee stamp and that although a number of dates had been fixed in the case, the respondent wrote to him on 21st of January 1948 that no hearing had been fixed and that the applicant would be informed when the date was fixed. It is urged in the petition that since the respondent did not file the court-fee stamp inspite of a payment having been made to him and also gave him false information, he was guilty of grossly improper conduct, and action should be taken against him. The respondent admitted most of the facts which have been stated already. He, however, pleaded that out of the sum of Rs 120/-paid to him, it was agreed that he will retain Rs. 75/- on account of his remuneration and that the balance of Rs. 25/-which would be required for the purpose of court-fee stamp and miscellaneous expenses would be sent to him later on. Since the required court-fee in the case was Rs. 59/4 and a stamp could not be purchased for a lesser denomination than that of Rs. 50/-, he presented the plaint on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 9/4 only. In this way he explained that he could not make use of the balance of Rs. 25/-because until another sum of Rs.25/-was added to it, a stamp of the value of Rs. 50/- could not be purchased. This application was sent to the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, for enquiry and report. The learned Civil Judge found that there were only two points for determination in the case, that is — (1) Whether it was settled between the applicant and the non-applicant that the amount of Rs. 50/- towards remuneration would be paid to the non-applicant before the institution of the suit and Rs.25/-after the case is decided. (2) Whether the non-applicant failed to inform the applicant of the progress of the case. 2. 50/- towards remuneration would be paid to the non-applicant before the institution of the suit and Rs.25/-after the case is decided. (2) Whether the non-applicant failed to inform the applicant of the progress of the case. 2. Af:er going into the evidence, the learned Civil Judge found that the total amount of Rs. 75/- on account of remuneration had been agreed to be paid before the institution of the suit as stated by the respondent and that this left a certain balance due from the applicant on account of deficiency in court-fee stamp. He never sent this amount to the respondent and accordingly, the latter could not be said to be guilty of not filing the full court-fee. As regards the second point, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the statement in Ex.P.1, the letter dated 2rst of January 1948 that no hearing had been fixed in the case was wrong as there had already been three hearings and that this portion of the letter must have been written without trying to elicit true facts and betrays negligence on the part of the respondent. The learned Civil Judge absolved him, however, on the ground that although the applicant was informed that the sum of Rs. 25/- was outstanding against him, he did not remit this amount and accordingly the respondent was not to blame. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving a careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are wholly unable to agree with the report submitted by the learned Civil Judge. The crux of the question in the case is whether the respondent had been paid full amount on account of court-fee stamp leviable on the plaint. It is conceded that the total amount paid was Rs. 120/- According to the respondent, he retained out of this the sum of Rs. 75/- on account of his remuneration and that the balance of Rs. 45/-was still deficient by the sum of Rs. 25/- as the total amount required for payment of court-fees and other expenses was Rs. 70/-. Taking the respondent at his word and holding for a moment that the position was as stated by him, the question is whether, in the circumstances, he could still be said to be guilty of a conduct which was against the professional morality. 25/- as the total amount required for payment of court-fees and other expenses was Rs. 70/-. Taking the respondent at his word and holding for a moment that the position was as stated by him, the question is whether, in the circumstances, he could still be said to be guilty of a conduct which was against the professional morality. The papers remained in his hands from 31st of July 1947 till 22nd of November 1947 on which date the plaint was actually presented in court. This covers a period of nearly four months. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the respondent made any effort to contact the client and demand from him the balance of Rs. 25/- which was still owing on account of deficiency in court-fees. The learned counsel for the respondent urges that when the client was fully aware that he still had to remit a certain sum of money on account of deficiency in court-fee, it was not at all necessary for the counsel to write to him and ask him to send the money in order that the plaint may be presented in court. The position as stated by the learned counsel is not correct and is against the respondents own conduct. The important question is whether after the suit had been instituted on a court-fee stamp of Rs. 9/4 only, it was the duty of the counsel, when it continued to be adjourned over and over again for a matter of nearly eight months for deficiency in court-fee stamp being made up, to inform his client of the true state of things and also of the fact that in case the balance of the amount was not remitted without further delay, he would not be responsible if the plaint was rejected by the Court. The record does not show that the respondent wrote to his client to the above effect at any time while the suit was pending. His case undoubtedly is that he had been writing letters to the applicant informing him of these facts and he even produced his Munshi Harakhraj to support him on this matter but we are unable to believe this version. His case undoubtedly is that he had been writing letters to the applicant informing him of these facts and he even produced his Munshi Harakhraj to support him on this matter but we are unable to believe this version. It appears that the respondent wrote only one letter to the applicant and that is Ex.P-1 dated 21st of January 1948 and in this letter he not only suppressed facts but also conveyed false information. He wrote to him saying that date had not been fixed in the case and that as soon as a date was fixed, he would be duly informed about it. This was on the face of it false. Atleast three dates had been fixed and every time the respondent took an adjournment to enable him to make up the deficiency in court-fee stamp. Where was the necessity of writing any letter at all to the applicant if the respondents position, as taken up by his learned counsel in this Court, was that since the applicant knew that he had not paid the full amount on account of court-fees stamp, it was his duty to remit this amount and the respondent need not do anything at all ? Any way, when the respondent actually came to write a letter to him, one would expect that he would inform him frankly and bluntly that the case was not able to proceed any further because the deficiency in court-fee stamp had not been made up and that he should send the balance to enable him to make it up as quickly as possible. This fact was completely suppressed from the letter. There is absolutely no reference to the adjournments granted in the case on account of deficiency in court-fee stamp and there is a false statement to the effect that no dates whatsoever had been fixed. At the end of this letter there is a note to the effect that he should send the balance of Rs. 25/-. Taking the respondent at his word, as has been done throughout this case if this amount was due on account of deficiency in court-fee stamp, why did he not mention it broadly and in a straight forward manner in this letter? These various facts lead us to believe that after all, the version put forward by the respondent is not correct. These various facts lead us to believe that after all, the version put forward by the respondent is not correct. As a matter of fact, he had not been paid his full remuneration and the full amount of Rs. 70/- had been delivered to him on account of court-fee stamp, and the balance of Rs. 25/- was due on account of remuneration. It is for this reason that the respondent did not and could not write to the client the facts relating to the development of the case. If he had received the full amount on account of court-fees, how could he inform him that the case was being adjourned because there was a deficiency in court-fee stamp. We are firmly of the view that this was on account of the fact that this sum was the balance due out of the remuneration and not out of the amount required for the stamp on the plaint. The learned Civil Judge has not made a proper approach to the points involved in the case. The question was not whether the respondent was guilty of not filing the full court-fee stamp. The point was whether full amount for this purpose had been paid to him and if so, was he guilty of professional misconduct for withholding a part of it. On the second question in the case the learned Civil Judge found that the respondent was negligent but absolved him on the ground that the sum of Rs. 25/- was outstanding from the applicant and since he had not remitted it, the respondent was not to blame. Here again, he completely missed the point. Leaving everything else aside, there was the broad fact staring in the face that the respondent had suppressed the truth and indulged in a deliberate falsification. The question is whether for a conduct of this kind, any action could be taken against the respondent or not. The learned Civil Judge, however, left this question alone. The relations between the members of the Bar and the clients rest upon a very high standard of mutual confidence and trust and it is expected that after a member of the Bar has been engaged on behalf of a particular client, be will always keep him fully informed of the progress of the case and post him with absolutely true information about it. As was held in 1944 Oudh 236(1. As was held in 1944 Oudh 236(1. Shyam Sunder v. S, a pleader.), members of the legal profession are expected to maintain not only a high standard of professional morality and ethics but they are also expected as men of edu-cation and culture and as members of an honourable profession to act in an honest, straightforward and upright manner. Any deviation from these elementary principles when brought to the notice of Courts must be severely dealt with. The conduct of a pleader, who makes palpably false statements to wriggle out of an inconvenient situation cannot but be regarded as reprehensible and is guilty of improper conduct involving moral turpitude. In 1935 Cal. 484(1. In re an Advocate.), it was held that if a professional man does not tell the truth in connection with a matter which he has undertaken to carry through on behalf of a client, that is conduct which might easily be said to involve moral delinquency. It is not in the best interest of the legal profession as a whole or any member of it that there should be any lay or loose standard of professional conduct. Henderson, J. held in this case that negligence accompanied by suppression of truth or by deliberate misrepresentation would be misconduct. Similar view prevailed in 1935 Cal. 547(2. Emperor V.K.C.B. A pleader.). There are a number of other authorities on this point but it is not necessary to multiply them. A certain amount of evidence has been produced during the course of enquiry on either side and we have chosen not to refer to it as it appears to us, the question involved in this case is clinched on the facts mentioned above as they emerge from Ex.P.1 and other circumstances surrounding the case. If reference to any evidence is necessary, we might advert to the statement of Kanhaiyalal produced by the respondent himself from which it is clear that when the applicant handed over the sum of Rs. 75/- to him for payment to the respondent, he also informed him that a certain sum of money still remained due on account of his remuneration. Thus, it is clear that the sum of Rs. 120/-paid to him included the sum of Rs. 7o/-on account of full court-fees stamp. Granting for a moment that it did not, he had spent only Rs. Thus, it is clear that the sum of Rs. 120/-paid to him included the sum of Rs. 7o/-on account of full court-fees stamp. Granting for a moment that it did not, he had spent only Rs. 9/4 on this stamp and still had a balance of Rs. 25/- in his hands. What was it which prevented him from affixing a stamp of Rs. 34/- on the plaint. If he had done that, as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant, it may have been possible for him at a later stage to save the plaint from being rejected in its entirety as he could then, with the consent of the client, amend the plaint and restrict his prayer for a decree to the amount covered by the court-fee stamp of Rs. 34/- only. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that according to a certain unwritten rule or practice when a court-fee stamp of Rs. 50/- is required, it is not open to the litigant or his counsel to purchase a stamp of a lesser denomination. The learned counsel has not been able to support this contention by reference to anything on the record and we are wholly unaware of such a rule or practice. In the circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and we hold accordingly. The respondent is hereby suspended from practice for a period of two months, and further directed to deposit his licence with the Registrar forthwith.