CHACHAPPAN, V.V. vs P.K.VIJAY

IN this complaint, under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Act, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- from the opposite party.

THE complainant had started a Departmental Store in the premises bearing No. 1-H 48, New Thippasandra, Bangalore. He had taken the said premises on rent. THE landlord of the said premises though had collected huge amount from the complainant for the construction of the said shop building, but started eviction proceedings in Case No. 3056/86 against the complainant in the City Civil Court, Bangalore. While the said proceedings were so pending, the landlord in the year 1990 caused damage to the shop building. Even though the complainant made complaint to the police but the police did not take any action against the landlord. So, he approached the said Advocate, the opposite party for seeking his services to help him in the matter.

The opposite party made a complaint to the police. But police did not take any action. The opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 500/- from the complainant for drafting the said complaint to the police.

WHEN the complainant did not get any relief to his grievances from the police, the opposite party, prepared a plaint and filed a suit in O.S. No. 11069/90 against the said landlord seeking an injunction order restraining the landlord from causing any damage to the said premises. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party did not get any relief for the complainant even in the said suit at an early date. But subsequently, the Court in the said suit directed the Advocate for the landlord to give in writing that the landlord would not do anything against the peaceful possession of the shop till the case was over.

AFTER securing the said order, the opposite party demanded for making payment of a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards his fees. The complainant explained his difficulties in making payment of the said sum immediately to the opposite party. The complainant subsequently when he found that the opposite party was very much indifferent to him and was not hopeful to get any relief, so he explained the difficulties to the opposite party and requested to return the case file with all the documents with no objection for entrusting the matter to any other Counsel. The opposite party did not oblige to the request of the complainant. So, he made an application to the Court in O.S. No. 11069/90 to get back the file from the opposite party. The complainant nextly averred that he also made an application to the State Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the opposite party. The said proceedings were still pending. The opposite party had even challenged the said disciplinary proceedings before the Hon''ble High Court.

THE complainant further averred that due to this inadvertant and care-free attitude of the opposite party he had suffered a great mental agony.

THE complainant, on the basis of these averments sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact that he had filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 1169/90 on 20th December, 1990 for and on behalf of the complainant against his landlord and he had also made I.A. 1 seeking an interim order of injunction pending disposal of the said suit.

The defendant in the said suit filed a memo undertaking not to disposess the complainant from the shop premises and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, pending disposal of the said suit. Subsequently, issues were raised in the said suit and the case was posted to 16.7.91 for filing the list of witnesses and documents.

THE opposite party further averred that while the suit was so pending, the complainant demanded for the return of the file and to give no objection for engaging another Counsel in the said suit to which the opposite party readily agreed but demanded for the payment of the fees from the complainant. THE complainant even made an application I.A. 2 on 16.7.91 in the said suit before the Court and the Court had posted for filing the objections on behalf of the opposite party in the said suit on I.A. No. 2. The complainant suppressing the fact that I.A. 2 was pending in the said suit, initiated the disciplinary proceedings before the Karnataka State Bar Council and opposite party filed Writ Petition No. 28311/93 before the Hon''ble High Court challenging the said disciplinary proceedings before the Karnataka State Bar Council.

THE opposite party further averred while the proceedings were so pending, that the complainant had engaged another Counsel in the said suit O.S. No. 11069/90. In the meanwhile, the eviction petition against the complainant came to be allowed under a compromise petition on 29.11.94 and on the very next day i.e., on 30.11.94 the complainant got O.S. No. 11069/90 dismissed as withdrawn. The opposite party averred that there was no deficiency in service on his part in prosecuting O.S. No. 11069/90, and so, sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and got Exs. C1 to C30 marked in evidence. The opposite party filed his affidavit in evidence and got Exs. R1 to R35 marked in evidence.

WE have heard the complainant and the learned Counsel for the opposite party. Perused the pleadings and the material on record.

IT is not disputed that the complainant had availed the services of the opposite party as an Advocate for consideration in the Suit O.S. No.11069/90. It is also not disputed that the opposite party had taken a sum of Rs. 1,600/- from the complainant towards his fees. On obtaining the said amount, the opposite party filed a complaint with the police and when he could not get any relief at the hands of the police, filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 11069/90 against the landlord of the complainant seeking an injunction order restraining the landlord from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said suit property.

It is also not disputed that in the said suit, the opposite party had also made I.A.-l. seeking an interim order of injunction, pending disposal of the said suit.

IT may be mentioned herein that the landlord had filed eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 3056/86 against the complainant and the said proceedings were still pending, when the complainant approached the opposite party in the year 1990. It is also not disputed that the complainant had engaged some other Counsel to defend him in H.R.C. No. 3056/86.

EX. R 4 is the copy of the order sheets recorded in O.S. No. 11069/90. It shows that the said suit came to be filed by the opposite party for and on behalf of the complainant on 20th December, 1990. On the said date, the order sheet revealed the defendant appeared through an Advocate and took time for filing written statement. The case was adjourned to 9.1.91. On 9.1.91 both the Counsel for the plaintiff and defendant were present in the said suit. But the defendant obtained further time for filing objection to I.A.I., and the written statement. The case was adjourned from 9.1.91 to 18.2.91. On 18.2.91, the order sheet shows that the defendant filed written statement in the said suit and also objection to I.A.I. The learned Counsel for the defendant in the said suit undertook not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit premises. The order sheet dated 18.2.91 reads as under: "Written statement & objections are filed. Issues and to hear I.A.I. by 4.4.91."

Soon thereafter, on the same day, the learned Counsel for the defendant gave an undertaking, which reads as under: "Sri. K.N.S. files a Memo undertaking not to interfere with the plaintiff''s possession of the suit property otherwise than in due course of law."

In view of this, the parties pray to close I.A. 1. I.A. 1 is closed. Issues by 4.4.91." The order sheets further show on 4.4.91, issues were framed and the suit was posted for filing documents and list of witnesses by 16.7.91. The order sheet dated 4.4.91 reads as under: "Issues are framed. Documents and the list of witnesses by 16.7.91."

THE order sheet dated 16.7.91, reads as under: "THE plaintiff files an application to change his Advocate. Issue notice to the Counsel for the plaintiff and to the witnesses. For evidence by 5.7.91."

IT is not disputed that subsequently the complainant initiated disciplinary proceedings before the Karnataka State Bar Council and the opposite party filed a writ petition challenging the said proceedings before the Hon''ble High Court. While those proceedings were pending, it is also not disputed that the complainant suffered an eviction order in H.R.C. No. 3056/86 on 29.11.94. Ex. R22 is the application made by both the parties in H.R.C. 3056/86 conceding the bonafide requirement of the landlord and on that basis an eviction order was recorded on 29.11.94 as per Ex. R 23.

It is also not disputed that subsequently, on the very next day, i.e., on 30.11.94, the plaintiff, the complainant herein made an application for withdrawal of the said suit. The said Memo for withdrawal made by the complainant in O.S. No. 11069/90 as per Ex. R 24 reads as under: "The plaintiff above-named begs to submit that he is not pressing the above suit and hence he may be permitted to withdraw the above suit, in the interest of justice and equity."

That was the Memo filed by the learned Counsel for the complainant whom he had engaged subsequently in the said suit.

THE application made By the complainant I.A. 2 in O.S. No. 11069/90 on 16.7.91, as per Ex. R 1 reads as under: "It is prayed that for the reasons given in the adjoining Memorandum of Facts, this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to permit the plaintiff to change his present Advocate and appoint another Advocate in the interest of justice and enquiry."

Subsequently, as referred above, the complainant engaged some other Advocate in the said suit O.S. No. 11069/90 on his behalf who conducted the further proceedings in the said suit. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are unable to find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in O.S. No. 11069/90. The complainant had availed the services of the opposite party as an Advocate in O.S. 11069/90. The opposite party filed the said suit and also made I.A. 1 and secured an order on I.A. 1, and subsequently, when the matter was posted for filing the list of witnesses and the documents, the complainant made an application in the said suit on 16.7.91 seeking permission of the Court to engage another Advocate in the said suit. It is material on record that subsequently the complainant engaged some other Advocate to plead for him in the said suit. The facts and the circumstances as referred above do not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in O.S. No. 11069/90.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to substantiate his grievances. There is no substance in the complaint made by the complainant. In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.