In Re: S.P., a Pleader

Courtney Terrell, C.J.—This is a case under the Legal Practitioners'' Act in which the conduct of Babu S.P., a Pleader at Jehanabad, is under investigation. One Munshi Singh of village Parasurampur in the District of Gaya instituted a Small cause Court suit against one Bansropan Chamar of village Mansa gar in the District of Shahabad. An ex parte decree was obtained at Jehanabad. Bansropan then applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., to set aside the decree and employed the pleader to represent him. The Munsif of Jehanabad restored the case and Bansropan filed a written statement complaining that the suit was a fraudulent one and that he had had no notice of the proceedings. The petition for re-opening the suit had been signed by the pleader.

The order of the Munsif however was set aside by the High Court. Later on Bansropan approached the Criminal Investigation Department who come to the conclusion that the suit by Munshi Singh was infact fraudulent and a title suit was instituted in the name of Bansropan to set aside the ex parte decree. Another pleader was appointed to act for Bans ropan. At the same time the police petitioned the Munsif for an order to prosecute Munshi Singh under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is astonishing to find that Munshi Singh employed Babu S.P. to represent him in the title suit and Babu S.P. accepted this vakalatnama. The Deputy Inspector General of Police then brought the matter to the notice of the Registrar of the High Court and notice was given to Babu S.P. to show cause why action should not be taken against him u/s 14, Legal Practitioners'' Act.

It will be seen that the pleader had already taken instructions from Bansropan and received his confidence in the matter of the genuineness of the Small Cause Court suit and notwithstanding that confidence he accepted the instructions of the other side. The distressing feature of the case is that Babu S.P. seems to have no instinctive realisation that his behaviour was improper. He has taken up the attitude, both in the inquiry before the Munsif and as represented before us, that the Small Cause Court suit and the title suit are technically separate matters and seems astonished that his change of sides should in these circumstances be considered a matter of reproach. At the same time he has expressed his regret but that regret is couched in such terms as to suggest that he bows to the ruling of the Court that his behaviour was technically incorrect.

Proper professional conduct is not a mere matter of compliance with technical rules. It is one of which everyone who aspires to be called a gentleman should have an instinctive appreciation. We may here remark that a body of rules of professional conduct is in course of consideration by this Court and by the Bar Council. It would be a matter of the deepest regret if the public or the profession should have the impression that merely strict compliance with such rules will necessarily constitute honourable professional conduct.

The whole matter is not one of technicality but of personal honour and we are astonished that the pleader should not have regarded the matter in this light. It is very obvious that his conduct is a matter for the severest censure and if another case of the kind is brought before us we shall consider the advisability of removing the guilty person from the ranks of the profession. In the circumstances of this case we shall content ourselves with pronouncing this censure upon the pleader and warning the profession at large.