Ranjit Singh, Chairperson.

1. These two appeals are filed by an Advocate who was engaged in these two cases to file O.A. by the Bank. The order impugned in these appeals is common and therefore these two appeals are being disposed of through this order.

2. Courts or Tribunals would not ever feel comfortable while dealing with a case where Advocate seeks adjudication in that case which arises out of his dispute with his client where he had appeared to represent his client. This is due to a special role which the Advocate performs in administration of justice.

3. No wonder he is termed as an officer of the Court. Three-fold loyalty of the lawyer to his client, to the Court or administrative agency before which he practises, and to society at large is unique in nature. This may present important problems of intrinsic interest to everyone. The intense scrutiny that the lawyers face as result of these significant duties has led to criticism and distrust of lawyer throughout history. The legal profession has gone to great length to regulate itself and should continue to do so to make sure that the things that cause this distrust do not happen.

4. The responsibility of the lawyer is onerous. He, as member of the legal profession, is a representative of his clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Thus, as a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As an advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of his legal rights and obligations, explains their practical implications. A lawyer seeks result advantageous to his client but consistent with the requirement of honoured dealing with others.

5. Thus, when a person who has such an important role in the administration of justice comes forward to make a grievance of an issue relating to his role as an Advocate, then it will be an unpleasant task for the Court or the Tribunal. This task nevertheless is required to be performed forgetting that the person before it is a lawyer who has entered into litigation with his client in a case in regard to the documents handed over to the lawyer for contesting a lis.

6. An application was filed by M/s. Nanak Dairy Plant and others who were defendants in the O.A. for release of their original title deed in respect of their mortgage property, as after the issuance of R.C. the borrower had settled the account with the Bank and the R.C. stood satisfied on 30.12.2013. Once the title documents of the property were not being released even thereafter, they filed an application before the Tribunal below seeking return of the title documents.

7. In response to the notice, the Bank appeared and admitted that the R.C. stood satisfied and that the defendants in the O.A. (respondents 2 to 7 herein) were entitled to get back the title documents. Simultaneously, the Bank pleaded that the documents were handed over to Mr. R.M. Gupta & Company, who was Advocate for the Bank for filing O.A. The Advocate had filed the O.A. but had not produced the original title deed before the Tribunal. Since the said Advocate had not been entrusted with prosecuting the case, the same was entrusted to another Advocate with a request to the previous (appellant) Advocate to return the documents.

8. The Bank in this regard has referred to a letter dated 3.3.2014 initiated by the lawyer admitting that the documents were with him and he had deliberately and intentionally withheld the documents. The ground advanced by the Advocate was that his fee had not been paid.

9. The Tribunal accordingly issued notice to the Advocate to produce the documents. In response, the appellant appeared. Since he did not produce the document, the Counsel was directed to file an affidavit. In his affidavit, the appellant has pleaded that he is not in possession of the files of these two cases, which were returned to the Bank when the Bank decided to engage another Counsel. His plea was that he could not comment upon the documents at that belated stage after 7 years. As per the appellant, the letter dated 3.3.2014 did not make any admission that the documents were in possession of the appellant.

10. The copy of the letter dated 3.3.2014 was produced before the Tribunal below. The Tribunal has made reference to Para 3 of the said letter, which is reproduced in the impugned order and is as under:

"We may like to record that the understanding between the Bank and ourselves has always been clearly to the effect that on the disposal of the cases of the Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the balance payment due to us would be released. It was only for this reason that neither the files of the cases nor the documents were recalled by the Bank from us. The Advocate also stated in Paragraph 5 of his letter that he shall be happy to retrieve and return the documents to the Bank on receipt of balance amount due to him against the pending memos as well as the amount indicated for retrieval of documents."

11. The Tribunal has taken the contents of this letter to be a clear admission on the part of the appellant. The Bank, of course, had pleaded before the Tribunal that the affidavit filed by the appellant was false. The Tribunal even went out of its way to request the appellant present before the Tribunal to make endeavour to return the documents receiving the fees to which he is reasonably entitled to and avoid the path of unwarranted confrontation. The Tribunal has regrettably noticed that the appellant was in no mood to accept that suggestion. The Tribunal accordingly issued fresh summons to the appellant to produce the title deeds in respect of the property which were held to be in his possession. The appellant has accordingly filed this appeal.

12. This Tribunal also made serious attempt to apprise the appellant Advocate to avoid creating a situation while reminding him the unique position of an Advocate in our system of administration of justice. The appellant who was present in person and was also represented by a Counsel instead referred to the affidavit filed by him before this Tribunal to urge that the title documents were not in his possession. The Counsel for the appellant would submit that this would be sufficient to absolve the appellant of his responsibility. The Counsel was then confronted with his letter and otherwise enquired as to what order this Tribunal can pass on this issue in the appeal. Of course, the response of the Counsel was to invite judgment that the title documents are not in possession of the appellant.

13. It may not be possible for this Tribunal to return a finding simply on the basis of an affidavit filed by the appellant that document not with the appellant. This Tribunal would be in any position to implicitly rely upon the contents of the affidavit and ignore all other materials. The letter written by the appellant directly stare at him and would beg an explanation as to how the affidavit can be relied upon on the face of what he has stated in this letter.

14. Attention of the appellant and his Counsel was invited to the fact that the Tribunal below has now issued summons to the appellant to produce the documents. The appellant can be expected to respond to the summons and raise the pleas whatever he may wish to, including that the title documents are not with him. If the appellant raises any such plea, the Tribunal has to consider the same and then pass any appropriated order. It would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to prejudge the issue at this stage once the same issue is being considered by the Tribunal below. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the present appeal as the factual controversy about the title documents are in possession of the appellant or not has to be decided by the Tribunal below where matter is still pending. I would, therefore, dismiss these appeals.

Appeals dismissed.