INRE: A PLEADER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is a First Grade Pleader. Two charges of professional misconduct were framed against him. The first chargewas that he was guilty of fraudulent and grossly improper conduct in that contrary to specific instructions given to him by his client he purchased in the name of his clerk property sold in execution of a decree obtained by his client and later had the property conveyed to his wife. The second charge was that he had unlawfully retained a sum of Rs. 129 -7 -0 out of an amount drawn from Court by him on behalf of his client. The charges were investigated by the District Munsiff of Conjeevaram whose report is now before us. The learned District Munsiff held that the respondent was entitled to be acquitted on both the charges and we accept his findings. No comment is called for on the finding in respect of the second charge, but we think it necessary to examine the law bearing on the first charge.

(2.) THE respondent filed the application for execution of the decree obtained by his client, the complainant. In due course an order for attachment and the sale of certain Immovable property was obtained. The property was subject to a mortgage for Rs. 400., On the 31st August, 1942, the respondent wrote to his client informing him that the auction had been fixed for the 2nd November and asked him if he wanted to purchase the property at the auction. He pointed out that if he did wish to bid, he must file a petition asking for permission to do so. As no reply was received to this letter, the respondent wrote to his client on the 5th October, 1942, tendering similar advice and adding:

(3.) RULE 17 of the rules framed by this Court under the Legal Practitioners Act prohibits a practitioner from purchasing from his client or from any other person any interest in a decree passed by the Court in which he practises, but there is no rule prohibiting a practitioner from bidding at an auction held in execution proceedings instituted by him on behalf of his client.