Madras High Court
W.M. Thorburn vs K. Venkata Rao on 16 February, 1900
Equivalent citations: (1900)10MLJ316
JUDGMENT
1. There is no doubt the language used in the petition was highly improper, and in returning the petition for amendment, the judge adopted the proper course. As no further immediate action was taken and the petition was not represented, the matter should have been allowed to drop and not resuscitated after the lapse of several mouths.
2. Further, we are of opinion that steps should not have been taken against the petitioner under the Legal Practitioners' Act, so long as it was possible to take notice of the act in any other way as one committed by a suitor. See the case In re Wallace I.L.R. 20 A 412. It may be added that the act of the petitioner was not per se sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to be a pleader. We therefore dismiss the charge.