ANNADA DEVI Vs. BANCHHANIDHI SAMANTARAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the District Judge of Cuttack under Section 14 of the legal Practitioners Act (Act XVIII of 1879) against the opposite party, Shri banchhanidhi Samantaray, a pleader practising at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'the pleader' ).

(2.) THE proceeding was initiated on a complaint made by Shrimati Annada Devi wife of one Udaynath Das who engaged the pleader in money suit No. 386 of 1955 and execution case No. 201 of 1955 on behalf of her husband. Annada Devi, admittedly, was the decree-holder in execution case No. 201 of 1955 and her husband was the decree-holder in execution case No. 106 of 1956. Money Suit No. 386 of 1955 was filed by her for recovery of a sum of Rs. 680/- against one Baldev das in the Court of the 1st Munsif, Cuttack. In the execution case No. 201 of 1955, admittedly, the pleader realised a sum of rs. 120/- between April 10, and September 1, 1956, from the Judgment-debtor and did not make over the said amount to her.

(3.) THE defence of the pleader was that he retained the said sum as it was adjusted towards his dues on account of fees and expenses made out of pocket on behalf of the petitioner and her husband. In the explanation submitted to the District Judge on 14-12-1956, he gave an account of his dues in the aforesaid three cases which came to Rs. 297-11-6; deducting the sum of Rs. 120/- from the said dues, the balance still due to him was Rs. 177-11-6. After the initiation of his proceeding, a compromise was entered into between Annada Devi and her husband on one hand and the pleader on the other. According to this compromise, the whole matter was settled on payment of Rs. 75/- by the pleader to the husband of the petitioner. A petition for withdrawing the proceeding was accordingly filed on 6-2-1957. The pleader in his deposition also admitted that he compromised the matter on payment of Rs. 75/- to the petitioner's husband. He, however, gave an explanation that at the intervention of some lawyers, he entered into this compromise and paid the sum of Rs. 75/though on that date a sum of Rs. 177-11-6 was still due to him from the petitioner and her husband. Since the proceeding concerned the conduct of legal practitioner the learned District Judge despite the compromise proceeded with the enquiry. On a careful scrutiny of the account book, Ext. B series filed by the pleader, the learned District Judge found that the account given by him in the explanation does not tally with the details in this account-book. Eventually he came to the conclusion that the petitioner and her husband had no liability at all to the pleader in respect of the foregoing cases, much less to the tune of Rs. 297-11-6 or any substantial portion thereof. According to him, the pleader had no reason to retain the sum of Rs. 120/-which he admittedly realised in the execution proceedings. In the result, he found him guilty of unprofessional conduct in withholding the money realised on behalf of his client and in trying to avoid payment thereof to her, and recommended suspension for a period of one year by his order dated 13-2-1957.