IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2929 OF 2002

B. Veerabhadra Rao & Anr.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

P. Dayanand       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By the impugned order, the Bar Council of India held that the appellants

have acted in violation of Rule 22 of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India

Rules [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”] and suspended them from practicing as

lawyers for a period of five years.   

Rule 22 of the Rules reads thus:

“An Advocate shall not, directly or indirectly, bid for or purchase, either in his own name or in any other name, for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other person, and property sold in the execution  of  a  decree  or  order  in  any  suit,  appeal  or  other proceeding in which he was in any way professionally engaged.”

The  above  reproduced  rule  contains  a  negative  injunction  against  the

advocates in the matter of giving bid or purchasing any property sold in the execution

of a decree or order in any suit, appeal or any other proceeding in which they are in

any way professionally engaged.  In terms of this rule, an advocate cannot directly or

indirectly give bid or purchase property sold in the execution by a decree etc. either in

his own name or in any other name for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other

person.   

...2/-

- 2 -  

The allegation  made in  the  complaint  filed  by  the  respondent  was  that

while  they were representing  Smt.  Yellamma in the litigation filed  by her against

Green Fields Plot Owners Association, the appellants persuaded him to enter into an

agreement in partnership with their minor son and wife respectively for purchase of

the land belonging to Smt. Yellamma and others and then settled the matter between

Smt. Yellamma and others on the one hand and Green Fields Plot Owners Association

on the other and in this manner his cause was adversely affected.   

In  our  view,  the  aforementioned  allegations  cannot,  by  any  stretch  of

imagination,  constitute  an  act  prohibited  by  Rule  22.   Indeed,  it  is  not  even  the

respondent’s case that the appellants submitted any bid or they tried to purchase any

property  sold  in  the  execution  of  a  decree  or  order  in  a  suit,  appeal  or  other

proceeding  in  which  they  were  professionally  engaged.   Therefore,  the  finding

recorded by the Bar Council of India that the appellants are guilty of violating Rule

22 of the Rules cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the

Bar Council of India is set aside.   

No costs.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 25, 2009.