BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA:

HYDERABAD
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO.IV
Dated this the First day of March, 2024.
- - -
Present : Shri Rama Rao, G, Chairman
Shri Bhujanga Rao, N, Member
Shri Vijender Reddy, N, Member

***
Complaint Case No.40 of 2023
(S.R.No.126/2021)
Between:
Sri Challa Prakash,
S/o.C.C.Kondaiah,
R/o.H.No.4-64, Jaggiahpeta Manda,
Chillakallu Village, Krishna District-521178. ….Complainant

Vs.
Mrs.Ayesha Afsar,
Advocate,
D/o.Dr.Mohammed Afsar Hussain,
R/o.H.No.2-2-1165/A/B, SS Enclave,
Tilak Nagar, New Nallakunta,
Hyderabad-500 044.
….Respondent.

The above case is referred to the Disciplinary Committee No.IV

by the Bar Council of Telangana under section 35(1) of the

Advocates Act, 1961 (Act No.25/1961).

This case is coming up for consideration before the Disciplinary

Committee No.IV and after giving notice to the Advocate – General

under Section 35(2) of Advocates’ Act, 1961 and after considering

the available material, the Committee made the following:-

1
 ORDER

1. The Complainant filed this complaint stating that the

Respondent Advocate filed Vakalat on his behalf by forging his

signature without any instructions in O.S.No.5640 of 2021 on

the file of Hon’ble II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad and played fraud on him. In the said Suit

Smt.Manjusree has shown him in a wrong address in the suit

for service of summons and got managed the service in

collusion with the then process server and got filed a report as

summons served on him in the said suit. In continuation of the

same the said C.Manjusree along with Respondent-Advocate

again played fraud upon the court and got filed a Vakalat

alleged to have been filed on his behalf in the said case. The

Complainant further submit that neither he has received any

summons in the said case nor he has instructed the

Respondent-Advocate to file any Vakalat on his behalf. When

he got the notice about the ex-party suit proceedings, he filed

an I.A.No.1121 of 2020 in above said Suit (which is pending for

adjudication) seeking condonation of delay and setting aside of

the ex-parte decree passed against Complainant.

2. On 16.12.2021 when the Complainant went to the Court along

with his Advocate and verified the docket proceedings it was

brought to his notice that as per the docket it was reflected

2
 that the said Respondent-Advocate has filed Vakalat on behalf

of Complainant behalf and thereafter there was no

representation consequent to which the Complainant was set

ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was passed and also brought

to his notice that the said Vakalats and process summons

papers have been destroyed being a disposed of file.

3. The Respondent inspite of receiving the notice did not choose

to appear though the matter was listed on 29.09.2023,

13.10.2023, 03.11.2023 respectively. The Respondent was set

ex-parte on 29.09.2023.

4. The Complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents

which were marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. The contention of the

Complainant is that without his consent /permission a Vakalat

has been filed before the Court in Civil Suit OS.No.5640/2021

on his behalf by forging his signature and he failed to appear

before the said court as per the Ex.C1 a Docket Order in

OS.No.5640/2021 on the file of Hon’ble II Junior Civil Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad. A perusal of the proceedings on

02.11.2001 was recorded by the said Court that Smt.Ayesha

Afsar i.e. the Respondent-Advocate filed Vakalt for Defendant

i.e. the Complainant herein and matter posted to 16.11.2001

for Written Statement.

3
5. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned several times for filing

Written Statement finally. The Civil Court on 12.11.2002 set

the Defendant i.e., the Complainant herein as ex-parte and

posted the matter for evidence and the said Ex.C1 further

reveals that on 28.11.2022, the said Civil Court received the

evidence of the Plaintiff therein and marked Ex.A1 to A4 and

passed Decree for recovery of amount Rs.41,000/- against the

Defendant, the Complainant herein. Ex.C2 is the copy of the

judgment in OS.No.5640/2021, dt.28.11.2002 passed by the II

Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and Ex.C3 a

letter addressed by The Assistant Public Information Officer-

cum-Chief Administrative Officer (Judicial), City Civil Court,

Hyderabad to the Complainant dt.20.12.2022. Ex.C4 that also

another letter dt.03.12.2022 under RTI Act information

provided to the Applicant under RTI Act, 2005.

6. The allegations in the complaint remained unchallenged since

the Respondent did not appear and chose to file any

Statement of Defence denying the allegations. The complaint

in support of the allegations in the complaint filed affidavit

along with documents marked as Ex C1to 4 and the evidence

of the Complainant was not rebutted. In view of non-rebuttal of

the allegations an adverse inference can be drawn against the

Respondent. However, the Complainant has to prove his case

4
 on his own by producing cogent evidence in support of his

allegations. But, in the present case the Complainant failed to

explain as to how the Respondent came to know about the

case of the Complainant OS. No 5640/2021, and what is her

personal interest in the matter and the necessity for the

Respondent to forge the signature of the Complainant. The

said crucial aspects were not explained by the Complainant

either in the complaint or in the Evidence Affidavit. The

Complainant did not placed any material to prove allegations

of forgery of his signature on Vakalat by Respondent. The

Respondent did not choose to appear before us to explain as to

why she failed to appear before the Court after filing Vakalat

for Complainant in OS No 5640/2021 and the result in the suit

ultimately gone against the Complainant, which proves that

the Respondent is negligent in defending the case of

Complainant.

7. The Respondent in spite of receiving notice from the

Disciplinary Committee-IV did not choose to appear, which

proves that she has no respect to the Disciplinary Committee

of Bar Council constituted under the authority of law.

8. Therefore, this committee based on the said evidence and

material is of opinion that the conduct of the Respondent is

certainly amounting to professional misconduct.

5
 In the result, the Respondent is found guilty of professional

misconduct under section 35(1) (3) (b) of The Advocates Act, 1961.

This Committee feels that it is appropriate to REPRIMAND the

Respondent Advocate with a direction not to indulge or repeat this

kind of acts of professional misconduct or the other conduct in

future.

Sd/- Rama Rao, G, Chairman

Sd/- Bhujanga Rao, N, Member
Sd/- Vijender Reddy, N, Member

Appendix of Evidence
ORAL
For the Complainant : Sri Challa Prakash (CW.1)

For the Respondent : Nil.

DOCUMENTARY

For the Complainant :

Ex.C1: Certified copy of the Docket Order in
O.S.No.5640/2001 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge,
CCC at Hyderabad.
Ex.C2: Copy of Judgment and Decree, dt.28.11.2022 in
O.S.No.5640/2001.
Ex.C3: Copy of a letter dt.28.12.2022 addressed by State
Assistant Public Information Officer Judicial, CCC at
Hyderabad to Complainant.
Ex.C4: Copy of a letter dt.03.12.2022 addressed by the
Senior Superintendent Court of the II Junior Civil
Judge, CCC at Hyderabad to assistant Public
Information Officer Judicial, CCC at Hyderabad.
For the Respondent : Nil.

(V.Naga Lakshmi)

6
 Registrar, Disciplinary Committee

No.IV.