2022 (6) TMI 1535 - HC - Indian Laws

Lawyer faces disciplinary action for providing false information about case filings and stay orders to client

Diwan Singh Bora Versus Suresh Chandra

The Uttarakhand HC addressed a delay condonation application in an eviction case involving recovery of rent arrears. The court found that counsel had ... Decree of an eviction - recovery of arrears of rent - wrongful extension of information to the litigant - Professional misconduct - HELD THAT:- It would be too premature to record any statement with regards to the conduct of the counsel, whose name has been specifically referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, because that would be exclusively a subject matter to be decided by the registering body of the counsel concerned i.e. the Uttarakhand Bar Council, because no professional registered with the Bar Council could be permitted to take liberty and play foul with a litigant by giving a wrongful understanding of taking the brief! informing the client that he has filed the case! thereafter informing him that he has got a stay order in his favour! thereafter making a statement that the stay order has been filed before the executing court! All these statements are per se apparently false because there is no prior pending revision, than the one at hand which has been instituted and there is no reason to disbelief the grounds taken by the revisionist in the delay condonation application of the Assurances extended by the counsel Mr Dushyant Manali. This false assurance extended by counsel for the revisionist as per the opinion of this court is of the view is tentatively and apparently true would amount to be a professional misconduct for which this Court is taking a suo moto cognizance and referring the matter to the bar council to draw an appropriate proceedings disciplinary against the counsel concerned for wrongful extension of information to the litigant due to which the revision had preferred the revision at a belated stage, when the revisionist faced the order passed by the executing court in pursuance to the impugned decree which has been put to challenge in the present revision. This court directs the Registrar General of this Court to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Uttarakhand to draw and appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the professional misconduct on part of Mr. Dushyant Mainali and to conduct and conclude the proceedings against him within a period of six months from today and report back to this Court of decision taken. The revision is directed to be listed next week for hearing at admission stage immediately after fresh. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:Whether the delay of 226 days in filing the revision petition against the decree of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent can be condoned.The legitimacy and sufficiency of the grounds presented in the delay condonation application, particularly the claim of professional misconduct by the advocate engaged by the revisionist, which allegedly caused the delay.The responsibility and liability of the litigant for the delayed filing when the delay is attributed to the false assurances and conduct of his counsel.The appropriateness of initiating suo moto disciplinary proceedings against the advocate for professional misconduct under the Advocates Act and related rules.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISDelay Condonation and Grounds for DelayRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the principles governing condonation of delay in filing revisions, which generally require the applicant to show sufficient cause for the delay, including circumstances beyond their control. The conduct of counsel and reliance by litigants on their advocates' assurances is a recognized ground for condonation, provided it is bona fide.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court carefully examined the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, particularly paragraphs 5, 6, and 11, which detailed the revisionist's reliance on his advocate's assurances that the revision was filed and that a stay order was obtained. The Court found that the revisionist was an elderly, illiterate person suffering from asthma, and that he had no reason to doubt his counsel's statements. The Court held that the revisionist cannot be held exclusively responsible for the delay when the advocate misled him.Key evidence and findings: The affidavit explicitly states that the revisionist's wife engaged the advocate, paid fees, and was assured of timely filing and stay orders. The revisionist made repeated inquiries and was assured of progress, but ultimately discovered that no revision had been filed. The Court noted the absence of any prior pending revision and the lack of any stay order actually obtained.Application of law to facts: Applying the principle that litigants who rely in good faith on their advocates' assurances should not be penalized for delays caused by professional misconduct, the Court found the grounds sufficient to condone the delay.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent objected to the delay condonation, but did not specifically deny the facts stated in the critical paragraphs of the affidavit. The Court observed that the objector may not have had knowledge of the internal communications between the revisionist and his advocate, and thus the objections were not determinative.Conclusion: The delay of 226 days in filing the revision petition was condoned in view of the bona fide reliance of the revisionist on the false assurances of his advocate.Professional Misconduct of the Advocate and Disciplinary ProceedingsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Advocates Act and the disciplinary rules of the Bar Council govern professional conduct and provide for disciplinary proceedings against advocates guilty of misconduct.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the conduct of the advocate, who falsely assured the client of filing the revision and obtaining stay orders without actually doing so, to be prima facie professional misconduct. The Court emphasized that no advocate registered with the Bar Council should be permitted to mislead a litigant in such a manner.Key evidence and findings: The affidavit and the absence of any revision filed prior to the current one, coupled with the false statements made by the advocate, constituted sufficient grounds for initiating disciplinary action.Application of law to facts: The Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter and directed the Registrar General to refer the case to the Uttarakhand Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act.Treatment of competing arguments: The Court did not delve into any defense or explanation from the advocate, as the matter was primarily procedural and disciplinary in nature. The focus was on protecting litigants from professional misconduct.Conclusion: The Court directed strict and expeditious disciplinary proceedings against the advocate, to be concluded within six months, and to report back to the Court.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court's crucial legal reasoning includes the following verbatim observations:'No professional registered with the Bar Council could be permitted to take liberty and play foul with a litigant by giving a wrongful understanding of taking the brief! informing the client that he has filed the case! thereafter informing him that he has got a stay order in his favour! thereafter making a statement that the stay order has been filed before the executing court! All these statements are per se apparently false.''Prima facie and so far as the revisionist is concerned individually, he cannot be held responsible for delayed filing of a revision when the revisionist counsel... has duped him by making a false statement, which was bonafidely believed by the revisionist.''This Court is taking a suo moto cognizance and referring the matter to the bar council to draw an appropriate proceedings disciplinary against the counsel concerned for wrongful extension of information to the litigant due to which the revision had preferred the revision at a belated stage.'Core principles established:A litigant's bona fide reliance on an advocate's false assurances can justify condonation of delay in filing a revision petition.Professional misconduct by advocates in misleading clients is a serious matter warranting suo moto disciplinary proceedings by the Court.The Bar Council must conduct disciplinary proceedings expeditiously and in accordance with the Advocates Act and rules.The responsibility for delay caused by an advocate's misconduct cannot be imputed to the litigant client.Final determinations:The delay of 226 days in filing the revision petition was condoned.The revision petition was directed to be listed for admission hearing forthwith.The matter of professional misconduct by the advocate was referred to the Bar Council for strict disciplinary action within six months.