ORDER 1.Delay condoned in Civil Appeal No. 5205 of 1998. 2.Learned counsel for the parties have been heard in both these appeals. 3. After going through the record and the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, what emerges is that Mr Dayashankar, Advocate, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6729 of 1996 wascounsel for the plaintiff Mrs Theresa Brown in Civil Suit No. 13-A of 1982. In that suit relief was claimed against Defendant 2 Mr O.T. Aldons and his wife Smt June Aldons. Mr Rozer Brown, son of the appellant was also impleaded as party-Defendant 1 but no relief was claimed against him. That suit was later on withdrawn. Subsequently,few years later, it appears thatsuit (Suit No. 13-A of 1986) came to be filed by Mr Rozer Brown, son of Mrs Theresa Brown. Mr Dayashankar, Advocate was counsel for the plaintiff. In this suit, though the mother of the plaintiff, Mrs Theresa Brown was madeparty-Defendant 3, relief was claimed essentially against Defendants I and 2 only. 4.complaint came to be filed on 14-11-1991 to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh by Mr O.T. Aldons, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5205 of 1998 (it was notcomplaint made by either mother, Mrs Theresa Brown or son, Mr Rozer Brown). It was alleged in the complaint that since Mr Dayashankar had first filedsuit on behalf of Mrs Theresa Brown, in which Mr Rozer Brown wasdefendant, his filingsuit on behalf of Mr Rozer Brown in 1986 (Suit No. 13-A of 1986) amounted to professional misconduct and he should be punished for the same. 5. Since the proceedings could not be completed before the State Bar Council of M.P. within the statutory period of one year, as required by Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, proceedings were transferred to the Bar Council of India where the matter came up before the Disciplinary Committee and the Committee opined that the Advocate concerned was guilty of professional misconduct butlenient view was taken and he was reprimanded. 6. Civil Appeal No. 6729 of 1996 has been filed by Mr Dayashankar, Advocate against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding him guilty of professional misconduct and reprimanding him while Civil Appeal No. 5205 of 1998 has been filed by complainant seeking enhancement of punishment. 7. 6. Civil Appeal No. 6729 of 1996 has been filed by Mr Dayashankar, Advocate against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding him guilty of professional misconduct and reprimanding him while Civil Appeal No. 5205 of 1998 has been filed by complainant seeking enhancement of punishment. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. In our opinion, there was no conflict of interest insofar as Mrs Theresa and her son Mr Rozer Brown are concerned in the two suits. Therefore, filing of the second suit (Suit No. 13-A of 1986) by Advocate Mr Dayashankar, after filing of the first suit (Suit No. 13-A of 1982) but after its withdrawal, does not, in our opinion, strictly speaking, amount to professional misconduct but it certainly was not proper for Advocate Mr Dayashankar to have filedsecond suit after having filed the first suit on behalf of the mother in which the plaintiff of the second suit wasdefendant himself. The conduct of the Advocate was certainly improper and he should have been careful. However, since he has been reprimanded by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, we think the ends of justice have been served. No interference is called for in either of the appeals. 8. Both these appeals are, therefore, disposed of. No costs.