Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 308 (MP)

Prakash Chandra Chandil v. Arun Singhal

2021-03-03

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2021
ORDER 1. This civil revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 3.11.2015 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class 2 Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 4A/2014 by which the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present revision in short are that the respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs, have filed a suit for eviction against the respondents No. 3,4 and the applicant on the ground that the disputed shop is shown in red colour in the Plaint map. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 had let out the disputed shop to the defendant No.2 as a Sikmi tenant on 30.6.1997. A suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and sub-letting, which was decreed and the civil appeal was also dismissed. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed two separate appeals which are pending before the High Court. It is alleged that the defendant No.1 is tenant of two shops belonging to the plaintiffs and earlier one consolidated suit for eviction was filed, and now two different suits for eviction are being filed. 3. Since, this Court is not concerned with the grounds on which the suit has been filed for eviction against the defendants No.1 and 2, therefore, this Court shall only consider the pleadings made against the applicant/ defendant No.3 in the plaint. It is mentioned that the defendants No.1 and 2 obtained stay order from the High Court. The applicant/defendant No.3 is the Counsel for the defendant No.2 and is also a Counsel for the defendants in S.A. No. 424/2003 and the stay order in said appeal was passed in his presence. In spite of that an attempt was made to illegally obtain a water tap connection, whereas the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had restrained the defendants from obtaining the water tap connection. It was further pleaded that the applicant is a senior advocate and it was his legal duty that he should have advised the defendants No.1 and 2, not to take water tap connection, and it was his duty to ensure that the status quo should have been maintained, but failed in his duty. It was further pleaded that the applicant is a senior advocate and it was his legal duty that he should have advised the defendants No.1 and 2, not to take water tap connection, and it was his duty to ensure that the status quo should have been maintained, but failed in his duty. The tenant has no right to obtain the water tap connection and it is known to the defendants No.1, 2 and the applicant (defendant No.3). They could have obtained an order from the Court, but since, they were aware that they would not be able to obtain such permission, therefore, defendant No.2 started making efforts to obtain the water tap connection in a clandestine manner,which was not objected by defendant No.1. Thus it was prayed that the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for eviction on the ground of 12(1)(c) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It was also pleaded that the applicant/defendant No.3 is a legal professional and therefore it cannot be presumed that he doesn't know law and he deliberately supported the defendant No.2 by appearing on his behalf before the High Court and thus committed professional misconduct. It was further pleaded that not only the applicant is appearing on behalf of defendant No.2, but he is also encouraging him and filed a counterclaim on incorrect facts whereas the counter claim was not maintainable under section 41(1) of Specific Relief Act. Thus, it was pleaded that the applicant/ defendant No.3 has actively assisted the defendant No.2 in obtaining the water tap connection. It was further pleaded that the applicant/defendant no.3 is also in habit of arguing before the Court in an illegal manner, which is evident from the fact, that the applicant had filed one appeal on behalf of defendant No.2 before the Court of VIIth A.D.J., Gwalior, which was not maintainable and when, the plaintiffs appeared before the Court below, then the appeal was withdrawn. Similarly, the applicant had filed a contempt petition No. 14/2004 in the High Court which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn with a cost of Rs. 5000/-. Further in another case between Laxman Rathor v. Mohanlal Sharma, the applicant had filed the written statement on false grounds, as a result of which the tenant was forced to waive the arrears of rent, and only then the premises was got vacated. 5000/-. Further in another case between Laxman Rathor v. Mohanlal Sharma, the applicant had filed the written statement on false grounds, as a result of which the tenant was forced to waive the arrears of rent, and only then the premises was got vacated. Similarly, the applicant/defendant no.3 has obtained various orders from different Courts by suppressing the law. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs are also going to make complaint before the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, against the applicant/defendant No.3. Therefore, a decree was sought for a declaration that the applicant/defendant No.3 has caused nuisance by appearing on behalf of the defendant No.2 in an illegal manner by going against the law, and a direction be issued to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh to take action against the defendant No.3/applicant. 4. The applicant/ defendant No.3, filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC, seeking the dismissal of the suit against him on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against him. 5. The application was opposed by the respondents. 6. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 3.11.2015, rejected the application on the ground that for considering the application under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C., the Court is required to look into the plaint averments only. 7. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that if the entire plaint averments are considered, it would be clear that no cause of action has been disclosed against the applicant. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served. 9. From the plaint averments, it is clear that the respondents are aggrieved by the fact that the applicant is appearing on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2. Certain allegations in respect of his professional conduct have been made against the applicant/defendant No.2 and has sought a decree of mandatory injunction against the Bar Council to take disciplinary action against the applicant. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (WRIT PETITION [C] NO.612 OF 2016) has held as under :-- "71. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (WRIT PETITION [C] NO.612 OF 2016) has held as under :-- "71. Thus, after the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961 with effect from 19.5.1961, matters connected with the enrolment of advocates as also their punishment for professional misconduct is governed by the provisions of that Act only. Since, the jurisdiction to grant license to a law graduate to practice as an advocate vest exclusively in the Bar Councils of the State concerned, the jurisdiction to suspend his licence for a specified term or to revoke it also vests in the same body. * * * 79. An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of Court may also, as already noticed, be guilty of professional misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India to punish that Advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence, as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case.....................'' 11. This Court in the case of Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav v. Union of India and others by order dated 27.8.2019 passed in W.P. No. 4308 / 2016 has held as under : ''118. Thus, it is clear that the question of professional misconduct by an Advocate is within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Council and this Court cannot consider this aspect.'' 12. Therefore, it is held that it is within the exclusive domain of the Bar Council to consider the question of professional misconduct. The Civil Court cannot consider/examine as to whether any action of a Lawyer is a misconduct or not ? Similarly, the trial Court cannot pass a mandatory injunction against the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Lawyer. A complete procedure is provided under the Advocates Act. 13. Order 7 rule 11 CPC reads as under : 11. The Civil Court cannot consider/examine as to whether any action of a Lawyer is a misconduct or not ? Similarly, the trial Court cannot pass a mandatory injunction against the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Lawyer. A complete procedure is provided under the Advocates Act. 13. Order 7 rule 11 CPC reads as under : 11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. 14. Thus, in the light of the pleadings against the applicant/defendant No.3, it is held that no cause of action has been disclosed against the applicant/defendant No.3 and in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan (supra), the suit filed by the respondents is also barred by law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3.11.2015 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class 2 Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 4A/2014 is hereby set aside. The civil suit filed against the applicant/defendant No.3 is hereby Dismissed. 15. The Civil Revision accordingly succeeds and is hereby Allowed with cost of Rs. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3.11.2015 passed by 11th Civil Judge, Class 2 Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 4A/2014 is hereby set aside. The civil suit filed against the applicant/defendant No.3 is hereby Dismissed. 15. The Civil Revision accordingly succeeds and is hereby Allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 to the applicant/defendant No.3 within a period of one month from today.