KANIYA LAL JETHALAL PUJARA vs J.N. SHETH

-FOR the first time, the complaint was made before us against the Opposite Party, a practicing Advocate alleging deficiency in his service.

SHORTLY stated, the facts are that the complainant had engaged the services of Opposite Party as an Advocate to plead his case in the Explanade Court at Bombay. According to the complainant, he paid Rs. 2000/- towards the fees of Opposite Party for his services as an Advocate to plead his case No. 59/S/88 in Explanade Court. The complainant has filed photocopy of the receipt about the payment made to the Opposite Party. It is the case of complainant that since he was resident of London, he wanted the decision of the case to be expedited. The hearing was fixed on 16.1.91. The complainant alleged that Opposite Party did not disclose true facts to the Court as regards the allegations made against him that he was not residing at London. He further added that his application for early hearing was not pressed by Opposite Party before the Court and, therefore, the Court filed that application as not prassed. The said order is also placed on record. The Opposite Party filed his written versions in response to the notice from this Commission, but remained absent on 8.1.1993 when the case was fixed for hearing. We, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Party as he remained absent despite the notice from this Commission. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his allegations and closed his case. We also heard the complainant in person.

The only point to be decided in this complaint is whether there has been any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party? We have perused the order of the Explanade Court in Case No. 59/S/88 passed on 16.1.1991. It is reproduced below:- "Reply taken on file. Advocate for complainant does not press the application. As per the original date of hearing which is on 25.3.91, the trial to proceed on that date. Accused Advocate, complainant and his Advocate to remain present."

THE present complaint is made on the only allegation that the Opposite Party did not press the application of early hearing to controvert the allegations made by the opponents of complainant as to whether he was residing in London or not. Simply because the Opposite Party did not press the application of early hearing cannot be considered as an act of deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party. THE complaint filed by the present complainant before the Metropolitan Magistrate was not finally decided and was fixed for hearing on 25.3.91. From the incident referred above, it cannot be inferred that the complainant has suffered any loss or that any damage has been cause to his case. In fact, to our querry, the complainant has stated that the Opposite Party is still his Advocate in the said case. Under these circumstances, we do not find that there is any substance in the allegation made by the complainant to constitute the deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party. Hence, we dismiss this complaint without any cost. Complaint dismissed.