HOW A lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agrawal

• . A lawyer should assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of the legal profession.
• A lawyer should assist the legal profession in fulfilling its duty to make legal counsel available.
• A lawyer should assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law.
• . A lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law.
• A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety. Right.

Dear Mr. Shankar Lal .

In response to your letter having your anxiety to become conversant regarding the circumstances , in which the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agrawal  in his judgement dated 10. 9. 2012, which has yet not been placed on internet and the same has been send to you directly without informing to me by my clerk inadvertently, other wise I would have taken the recourse to save integrity, proprietary on ethical foundations eroded in the said judgement by attacking the competency of the undersigned Advocate, who has been appreciated by the Hon’ble Judges , members of the Bar Association and got the appreciations by all of them  in giving me the honour for inducting me as member of Ganga Pollution member committee , member in mediation centre , Amicus Curie on account of maintain the high ethics and professional ethics in my profession. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agrawal  has got some past prejudices with me hen he was representing the electricity Board as its Counsel , as I have exposed the falsehood in levying the L.M.V. 5 , instead of L.M.V. 5 from the farmers of District Farrukhabad .

In this regard, I want to inform you that in the back ground of the case enunciated as under, I informed the Hon’ble Judge that Smt. Rama Dubey is a rank trespasser by her own admission as she had stated in her written statement the she is SUB TANANT of Mahendra Dutta at the rate of Rs.  100/ - per month , while the decree passed in respect of the arrears  rent being  realized from Mr.  Mahendra Dutta and thus there was no occasion for inducting a sub tanant by this Hon’ble Court  on the Contention of the petitioner  that she had furnished the security in furtherance of the rent amenable to Mr.  Mahendra Dutta, as the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Court is not to perpetuate the illegality in favour of such lady.

Smt. Rama Dubey is supported by the muscle man and-mafia to grab the property left by tenant Mahendra Dutt during the period just before filing the suit and as such she was made party as trespasser in the property belonging to the land lords and is now pretending herself to be the genuine tenant of the deponent in order to grab the landed property by making an abuse of process of this Hon’ble court.

o    That Smt. Rama Dubey wife of Sri Radha Raman Dubey, has herself accepted in her own written statement (C.A.-1), admitting therein that she remained the sub-tenant of Mahendra Dutt at the enhanced rent of Rs. 100/- per month as observed in judgement dated  in the premises belonging to the petitioner. She was the teacher in Nehru Vidyalaya, which was running in the premises of the landlord.

o    That the petitioner has adopted an evasive tactics, not to reply the averment made in Para-4 and 5 of the counter affidavit. She did not mention any reply to the averments made in reply to the Para- 6 and 7 of the Counter affidavit.

o    In para-4,5,6 and 7 the composite effect of the averments stated in these paragraphs is;- the petitioner has expressly stated that Mahendra Dutt (respondent no.5) who was the tenant in the property in dispute had put the petitioner in possession on a representation that Mahendra Dutt would surrender his tenancy and get the petitioner made the tenant in-chief . The petitioner had also expressly stated in paragraph no.14 of her Written statement that she had been regularly paying rent to the defendant no.1 in reply to the averment made in suit no. 38 of 1977 i.e. Mahendra Dutt, the tenant arrayed respondent no.5 in the writ petition. There is no pleading whatsoever either that the tenant surrender his tenancy and  got her accepted as tenant in chief, nor is there any pleading to the effect that Mahendra Dutt paid any rent to the landlord on her behalf.

• In the contents of paragraph no.25 of the counter affidavit has not been replied and admitted by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit, which is reproduced as under;-

              “25.  That the petitioner having been an unlawful sub-tenant without any permission of the answering respondents, un-authorized inducted in illegal possession of the property in dispute by respondent no.5 without any permission of the answering respondent, on the own pleadings of the petitioner, contained in her written statement, is unauthorised and unlawful occupant of the premises and is neither legally affected by the ex-parte decree nor is possessed of any locus standi to have move the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. what ever.”

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion made in the counter affidavit, the documents annexed as Annexure no.1 said to have been written on 27.3.1971 by the deponent is a forged document. The same was not even the part of the document filed before the court below. Thus the offence of the perjury as well as criminal contempt of court has been committed by Smt. Rama Dubey in filing the forged document dated 27.3.1971 in the writ petition.

It was further submitted that the decree of eviction passed on 31.3.1989 has been passed after striking the defence of the tenant under Order 15 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. against Mahendra Dutt,  as Mahendra Dutt had not deposited the entire rent within time on the date fixed for the aforesaid purposes. The order passed on 11.1.1978 is reproduced as under:-

                  “ 11.1.78    15.C application u/s 15 rule 5 C.P.C. for striking off the defense on the ground that the defendant did not deposit the agreed due rent and the interest thereon the first day of hearing.

                   I have heard the learned counsel for the parties the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant moved an application 16-C for passing the tender of the defendant for depositing the rent, thus the defendant intended to deposit the agreed rent on the first date of hearing and therefore, the application 15-C should be rejected.

                  I have gone through the record of the case and I find that the first date of hearing was fixed on 14.9.77, but on 14.7.77 the defendant No.1 applied for time to file the W.S. and the time was allowed by this court.

                  The counsel granted time up to 29.9.77 for filing the W.S. The defendant filed the W.S. on 29.9.77 and moved this application 16-C for passing his tender to deposit the rent on the same day. It may be presumed that since on W.S. was filed on 14.9.77 and the counsel granted time. The defendant may deposit the rent up to the date fixed for W.S. because in the absence of W.S. the hearing can not be taken up. If the defendant was given time to file W.S. but the perusal of the tender shows that the defendant did not enter the amount of interest at the rate of 9% which is contemplated in law, to be deposited along with the rental amount. Therefore, the question of passing of the tender did not arise. The defendant to have deposit the entire rent along with the interest at the rate of 9% on the date of first hearing, but instead of depositing the whole amount the defendant simply moved application in office to pass his tender which was for inadequate amount. Thus I am of the view that the defendant never intended the deposit the whole amount along with the interest on the first day of hearing. Therefore, I do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant and the W.S. is, therefore, struck off. The case to proceed exparte against the defendant.

                 Put up on 1.2.78 for exparte hearing.

                                                           Sd/-  J.S.C.C.

       14-C   application for staying the proceedings of this suit u/s 10 C.P.C.

        17-C is objection.

                 Heard the learned counsel for the parties on this application also. In 14-C it has been alleged that a suit relating to the same subject matter between the parties has been pending in the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, this case should be stayed. The perusal of the application shows that the defendant has neither given any number of that suit on the appeal nor has filed any document relating to that suit. Therefore, I am of the view that the application should be rejected for want of proper evidence in the support of this application. Therefore, the application is rejected.

                                                      Sd/- P.N. Rai    J.S.C.C. (Civil Judge)

In the rejoinder affidavit, another forged document purported to be executed on 19.5.1979 has been manufactured under the forged signature of the deponent Sri Sankar Lal, in which the attesting witness are shown to be the witnesses of District Jalaun and Tehsil Chhibramau, District Farrukhabad. The endorsement annexed on the 2^nd page of the said document is pertaining to some “Will” under the Notary Act, 1952 by one Prem Rudra on 19.5.1979 at serial no.37-79. Thus a device has been adopted by the petitioner, not only to mislead this Hon’ble Court, but to commit forgery. The petitioner has also committed a fraud upon the right of the Applicant/deponent being the landlord of the premises in question. For the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, the certified copy of the written statement dated 14.7.1977 and certified copy of entire order-sheet of Suit no.38 of 1977 containing the order referred to above having striking the defense is filed herewith to substantiate the pleading of the present affidavit

Thus the entire device of filing the documents purported to be the agreement dated 27.3.1971, 19.5.1979 and one more alleged agreement purported to be manufactured in order to substantiate the averments made in paragraph no.5 and 7 of the plaint in another suit no. 346 of 1978 (Smt. Rama Dubey Vs. Sri Shanti Mohan and 2 others ) is lying pending in the court of Civil Judge Etawah, wherein the prayer is made not to enforce the execution on account of decree passed in present suit no. 38 of 1977 against Smt. Rama Dubey as she is continuing in occupation of the premises in question on the basis of independent right.

That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to punish the petitioner on account of filing the forged and manufactured documents ( purported agreement dated 27.3.1971 and 19.5.1979) (bearing forged signature of Applicant/deponent) namely filed as Annexure No. 1 to writ petition and Annexure R.A. 1 respectively by the petitioner for falsely claiming/ purporting herself to be tenant of the applicant/ deponent , as the said documents by its own reading have been manufacture in contradiction of the claim of petitioner  set- up in her written statement and were filed de-novo first time in writ petition. The petitioner may also be punished for committing abuse of process tanamounting to criminal contempt.