Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is seen that the deceased first respondent had not deposited the amount within the time as directed by the Court below by Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.140 of 1993, dated 09.07.2004. Further, it is seen that seeking enlargement of time to deposit the abovesaid amount, the deceased first respondent had moved I.A.No.24 of 2007, under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and with reference to the aboveaid application, according to the deceased first respondent, as against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.140 of 1993, dated 09.07.2004, no appeal had been preferred by the revision petitioners and two others. Further, http://www.judis.nic.in according to him, after the decree had been passed in the abovesaid suit, he had given the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to his Lawyer, who conducted the case, to be deposited in the Court within the time fixed for deposit and he was under the bona fide belief that his Lawyer had deposited the amount in the Court and when he contacted his Lawyer, he was informed that the abovesaid sum had been deposited in the Court in time and he had been asked to wait for two more months so as to see whether the revision petitioners and two others are executing the sale deed in terms of the Decree or not and inasmuch as the revision petitioners and two others had not come forward to execute the sale deed, even after the time fixed in the Decree had expired, it is his case that he had instructed his Lawyer to file the execution petition, however, his Lawyer had delayed the matter and accordingly, it is his case that when he raised a doubt whether the abovesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had been deposited in the Court or not, his Lawyer gave him the counterfoil of the challan issued by the Court, dated 17.08.2004, which has been produced along with the application and accordingly, it is his case that on the basis of the counterfoil of the challan, he was convinced and also according to him, he was informed by his Lawyer that the execution petition had been filed and the same is pending and thereafter, when he contacted his Lawyer to know the progress of the execution petition, no proper reply came from his Lawyer and after waiting for a considerable time, as no fruitful result came out, it is his http://www.judis.nic.in case that he made further enquiries and learnt to his astonishment that no execution petition had been filed and he also came to understand to his shock and surprise that the sum given by him to his Lawyer had also not been deposited in the Court and thereby, he had been betrayed and accordingly, it is his case that inasmuch as he is willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- as directed by the Court, seeking extension of time with reference to the same, according to the deceased first respondent, he has been necessitated to lay the abovesaid application.

10. While the abovesaid civil revision petitions have been pending, it is seen that the Advocate, who had appeared for the deceased first respondent, namely, V.Kumaran Nair had moved a miscellaneous petition in this Court in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2009 seeking to get himself impleaded as a respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008 and with reference to the abovesaid case, according to V.Kumaran Nair, the deceased first respondent had putforth a false case as if he had entrusted the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to him to be deposited in the Court and that he had committed a fraud on him by giving a counterfoil of the challan and contended that the Court below, on holding that the reason given by the deceased first respondent is probable and acceptable and thereby, had cast a serious stigma on his name and reputation, it is also stated that he had also moved the District Court, Kanyakumari, by filing C.M.A.S.R.No.4042 of 2008, for expunging the abovesaid remarks passed against him and on coming to know the filing of the abovesaid civil revision petitions by the revision petitioners, seeking intervention in the abovesaid revision proceedings for the relief of expunging the adverse remarks that have been passed against him and accordingly, contended that before passing any adverse remarks against any person, who is not a party to the proceedings, the Court is obliged to put him on notice and hear him and cannot make offensive observations against a person behind his http://www.judis.nic.in back and he had also rendered the professional service to the deceased first respondent for several years without any complaint and had also appeared for him in a number of cases and when the deceased first respondent had thrown false and baseless allegations against him and when it is not difficult to obtain the counterfoil of the challan, the Court below having cast a cloud on his character and integrity based on the baseless allegations of the deceased first respondent and according to him, he had not received any sum from the deceased first respondent for depositing in the Court and therefore, the reasons given by the deceased first respondent casting slander on his character and reputation, necessitated him to intervene in the revision petition to putforth his case, accordingly, prayed for his impleadment in the revision proceedings.

13. It is contended by the revision petitioner's counsel that the Court below had failed to take into account that the deceased first respondent had not established his case in blaming his Advocate for not depositing the amount in the Court and further according to him, when the very factum of the entrustment of the amount by the deceased first respondent to his Advocate has not been established by him and when with reference to the same, the case projected by the deceased first respondent is found to be bereft of material particulars and furthermore, according to him, the counterfoil of the challan, by itself, would not lead to the conclusion that the deceased first respondent has always been ready and willing to perform his contract in http://www.judis.nic.in paying the balance consideration as directed by the Court while disposing of the suit and further, according to him, there is no material placed on record worth acceptance on the part of the deceased first respondent that the counterfoil of the challan had been really entrusted to him by his Advocate and when the deceased first respondent had not established that he had taken action against his Advocate as per law on his failure to deposit the alleged amount said to have been entrusted by the deceased first respondent in the matter, lastly, concluded his argument by contending that when the said fact has been now repudiated by the concerned Advocate himself in the revision proceedings by getting himself impleaded as a party respondent, in toto, according to him, the impugned orders of the Court below granting enlargement of the time to the deceased first respondent for depositing the balance sale consideration and thereby, rejecting the revision petitioners' application for rescission of the contract are liable to be set aside and prays for suitable orders. Further, he would also contend that the Court below had failed to take into consideration that the petition laid by the revision petitioners is earlier in point of time and only thereafter, the deceased first respondent had chosen to lay the application for enlargement of the time and the abovesaid factor had also not been taken into consideration by the Court below in the right perspective and thereby, also erred in passing the impugned order.

21. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Court below having accepted that the deceased first respondent had not placed any material evidencing that he had initiated action against the Advocate concerned for his failure to deposit the amount in the Court alleged to have been entrusted by him to the Advocate, however, still proceeded to accept the case of the deceased first respondent, based on the counterfoil of the challan marked as Ex.P2. However, as rightly putforth, even with reference to the same, there is no material worth acceptance pointing to the fact that Ex.P2 counterfoil of the challan had been entrusted by the Advocate concerned to the deceased first respondent. As to what further emanated based on the counterfoil of the challan projected by the deceased first respondent, whether the amount had been deposited or not, when there is no clear case projected by the deceased first respondent, even then it is found that the Court below had proceeded to accept the case of the deceased, without reliable material pointing to the same and by accepting the case of the deceased first respondent, thereby upheld the allegations levelled by the deceased first http://www.judis.nic.in respondent against the Advocate concerned and thereby, it is found that as putforth by the Advocate concerned, when by way of the same, the Court below had cast certain aspersions on the part of the Advocate concerned impliedly, it is seen that the Court should have been more cautious while determining the issues involved in the matter by providing necessary opportunity to the Advocate concerned to putforth his case.