(1) THIS is a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against the order dated 20/5/1990 of the Bar council of India whereby the appellant was debarred from practising as an advocate for a period of six months effective from the receipt of the copy of the judgment. The judgment was received by the appellant on 31/8/1990 as mentioned by learned counsel for the appellant as also stated in the grounds of appeal. This court granted ad interim stay of operation of the judgment on 14/2/1990 (sic). The appellant thus, remained debarred from practising for 3 1/2 months. The period debarring him from practising can, thus, be reduced to the period for which he has actually remained debarred i.e. about 3 1/2 months. (2) KEEPING that apart, the allegations made by the complainant against the appellant were that he was instructed to file a writ petition on behalf of the complainant and for the purpose had obtained Rs. 2,000.00 from him. The writ petition was not filed. The appellant could not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant, when solicited. It is in these circumstances that he had approached the Bar council of India for taking action against the appellant. Though, the appellant was served and was granted numerous adjournments on request, he only sent a written statement which was neither verified nor supported by his affidavit, barely mentioning a denial to the allegations. The appellant had no counter-version to offer. He never put in an appearance before the Bar council of India to further his case. The Bar council was, thus, left with no option but to proceed against the appellant ex parte resulting in the order under appeal. (3) THE argument of learned counsel for the appellant that he should have been given an adequate opportunity to present his case, has no basis. As an advocate, he ought to have known that when driven to a situation, tribunals and courts have sometimes to decide matters ex parte and the instant one is one such glaring case in which despite several opportunities given, he did not appear before the Bar council of India. The mere fact that the decision of the Bar Council is ex parte, is not enough to decry it. The objection raised is not sustainable and is. therefore, rejected. (4) THERE is nothing else to be said in the appeal. The mere fact that the decision of the Bar Council is ex parte, is not enough to decry it. The objection raised is not sustainable and is. therefore, rejected. (4) THERE is nothing else to be said in the appeal. As disclosed earlier, the prohibitory period is capable of reduction. We do so in confining the prohibitory period within 31/8/1990 to 14/12/1990 (5) WITH this modification in the period of prohibition, we dismiss the appeal.