PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Both in law and in ordinary speech, the term "misconduct" usually implies an act done wilfully
with a wrong intention. When this definition is applied to professional people, it includes
unprofessional acts even though such acts are not inherently wrongful.1 Misconduct is "a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from
duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour; its synonyms are
misdemeanour or, misdeed, misbehaviour delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence,
but not negligence or carelessness.'2

The expression professional misconduct in the simple sense means improper conduct. In law
profession misconduct means an act done willfully with a wrong intention by the people engaged
in the profession. It means any activity or behaviour of an advocate in violation of professional
ethics for his selfish ends. If an act creates disrespect to his profession and makes him unworthy
of being in the profession, it amounts to professional misconduct. In other word an act which
disqualifies an advocate to continue in legal profession.

The Supreme Court has, in some of its decisions, elucidated on the concept of ‘misconduct’, and
its application. In Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry,3 a complaint was filed by the
appellant against an advocate to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, that while appearing in a suit as a
counsel, he wrote a letter stating that the concerned judge, before whom the suit is pending
accepts bribes, and asked for Rs. 10,000 to bribe and influence the judge to obtain a favourable
order. The Disciplinary Committee, holding that the advocate was guilty if “misconduct”, stated
that such an act made the advocate “totally unfit to be a lawyer.” The Supreme Court, upholding
the finding of the Rajasthan Bar Council held that the legal profession is not a trade or business.
Members belonging to the profession have a particular duty to uphold the integrity of the
profession and to discourage corruption in order to ensure that justice is secured in a legal
manner. The act of the advocate was misconduct of the highest degree as it not only obstructed
the administration of justice, but eroded the reputation of the profession in the opinion of the
public.

1
Henry Campbell Black, (Ed.), Blackly Law Dictionary, St. Paul, Minn West Publishing Co., U.S.A. (6 th edn.-
1990), p.999.
2
In re P' An Advocate, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1313 at p. 1316.
3
Sambhu Ram Yadav v.Hanuman Das Khatry 2001 6 SCC 1. 165
In another case, Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali4the Supreme Court explored the
amplitude and extent of the words “professional misconduct” in Section 35 of the Advocates
Act. The facts of the case involved an advocate (appearing as a litigant in the capacity of the
respondent, and not an advocate in a rent control proceeding) assaulted and kicked the
complainant and asked him to refrain from proceeding with the case. The main issue in this case
was whether the act of the advocate amounted to misconduct, the action against which could be
initiated in the Bar Council, even though he was not acting in the capacity of an advocate. It was
upheld by the Supreme Court that a lawyer is obliged to observe the norms of behavior expected
of him, which make him worthy of the confidence of the community in him as an officer of the
Court. Therefore, inspite of the fact that he was not acting in his capacity as an advocate, his
behavior was unfit for an advocate, and the Bar Council was justified in proceeding with the
disciplinary proceedings against him.

In N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shind,5 where the advocate of one of the parties was asking for
continuous adjournments to the immense inconvenience of the opposite party, it was held by the
Supreme Court that seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who were
present without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of the
duty that an advocate owed to the Court, amounting to misconduct.

This was proven conclusively in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dahbolkar6,
the facts under consideration involved advocates positioning themselves at the entrance to the
Magistrate’s courts and rushing towards potential litigants, often leading to an ugly scrimmage to
snatch briefs and undercutting of fees. The Disciplinary Committee of the state Bar Council
found such behavior to amount to professional misconduct, but on appeal to the Bar Council of
India, it was the Bar Council of India absolved them of all charges of professional misconduct on
the ground that the conduct did not contravene Rule 36 of the Standards of Professional Conduct
and Etiquette as the rule required solicitation of work from a particular person with respect to a
particular case, and this case did not meet all the necessary criteria, and such method of
solicitation could not amount to misconduct. This approach of the Bar council of India was
heavily reprimanded by the Supreme Court. It was held that restrictive interpretation of the

4
Noratanmal Courasia v. M. R. Murali 2004 AIR 2440
5
N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde AIR 2001 SC 2028
6
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dahbolkar. AIR 1976 SC 242
relevant rule by splitting up the text does not imply that the conduct of the advocates was
warranted or justified. The standard of conduct of advocates flows from the broad cannons of
ethics and high tome of behavior. It was held that “professional ethics cannot be contained in a
Bar Council rule nor in traditional cant in the books but in new canons of conscience which will
command the member of the calling of justice to obey rules or morality and utility.” Misconduct
of advocates should thus be understood in a context-specific, dynamic sense, which captures the
role of the advocate in the society at large.

PROVISIONS IN ADVOCATES ACT 1961

The Advocates act 1961 is a comprehensive legislation that regulates the legal practice and legal
education in India. It envisages for the establishment of Bar Council of India and State Bar
Councils with various disciplinary committees to deal with misconduct of the advocates. It also
provides for the provisions relating to the admission and enrolment of advocates and advocates
right to practice. Chapter V containing sections 35 to 44 deals with the conduct of the advocates.
It provides for punishment for advocates for professional and other misconduct and disciplinary
powers of the Bar council of India. In order to attract the application of section 35 of the
advocates act the misconduct need not be professional misconduct alone. The expression used in
the section is Professional or other misconduct. So even conduct unconnected with the profession
may account to a misconduct as for example, conviction for a crime, though the crime was not
commited in the professional capacity. At the same time it is to be noted that a mere conviction
is not sufficient to find an advocate guilty of misconduct, the court must look in to the nature of
the act on which the conviction is based to decide whether the advocate is or is not an unfit
person to be removed from or to be allowed to remain in the profession.7

Chapter V of the Advocate Act, 1961, deals with the Conduct of Advocates. The provisions in
Chapter V relate to punishment for professional and other misconducts of Advocates. “Where on
receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate
on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal
to it disciplinary committee”8
7
Professional Ethics in Law<https://blog.ipleaders.in/professional-ethics-law/#targetText=Professional%20Ethics
%20In%20Law&targetText=Professional%20ethics%20encompasses%20an%20ethical,towards%20the
%20administration%20of%20justice.>
8
Section 35(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961
The provisions in the Advocates Act, 1961 irresistably establish the supremacy of the courts in
giving final decision on question of misconduct of a lawyer. Section 329 empowers the court to
permit appearance in cases and Section 34(1) declares that the High Court is competent to make
rules for implementing the provisions of the Act.

Also by virtue of section 38,10 the final word on the punishment of a lawyer for misconduct is
still with the Supreme Court. Further, rules made by the Bar Council of India as to standards of
professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates by virtue of Section 49(1)(c) 11 is
subjected to the approval of the Chief Justice of India.

Also Section 49(1) (c) is related to the conduct of the Advocate in the court room and hence it is
associated with contempt of court. From this a conclusion can be drawn that the authority to pass
final judgment on the conduct having a bearing on contempt of court seems to have been placed
on the Supreme Court as it is for the Chief Justice of India to approve these rules.

Another issue regarding regulation of legal profession is 'whether a Judge who has been
dismissed from service after finding him guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude can be
allowed to practice as a lawyer?'

This issue came before the Supreme Court of India in Baldev Singh Dhingra v. Madanlal
Gupta."12 In this case the Court held :

"Before Section 35 can be pressed into service by any complainant, the following two
requirements of misconduct have to be alleged and proved before any disciplinary proceedings
can result in punishment of the delinquent advocate: The advocate concerned must be alleged to
be guilty of professional or other misconduct. Such misconduct must have been committed by
him while he was a practising advocate, enrolled as such on the role of the State Bar Council

9
S. 32 of the Advocates Act 1961 reads : "Not withstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any court, authority,
or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any
particular case."
10
S. 34(1) of the Advocates Act 1961 reads : "The High Court may make rules laying down the conditions subject to
which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto."
11
S. 49(1) of the Advocates Act 1961 reads : "The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions
under this act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe - (c) The standard of professional conduct and etiquette to
be observed by advocates."
12
Baldev Singh Dhingra v. Madanlal Gupta (1999) 2 S.C.C. 745
concerned." The Court in this case held that since the accused has committed the offence when
he was not practising as a lawyer, he may resume his practice. This is not a correct view. It is
true that only advocates are entitled to practice law and when an Advocate becomes a judicial
officer, he has to surrender his license of practice. This does not mean that he is removed from
the roll. It only means his right to practice is suspended, i.e. he remains as an advocate on rolls.

INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT

Legal Practitioners Act 1879 has not defined the word Misconduct. The word Unprofessional
conduct is used in the act. Even the Advocates Act 1961 has not defined the term misconduct
because of the wide scope and application of the term. Hence to understand the instances of
misconduct we have to rely on decided cases. Some of the instances of Professional misconduct
are as follows:

1) Dereliction of duty

2) Professional negligence

3) Misappropriation

4) Changing sides

5) Contempt of court and improper behaviour before a magistrate

6) Furnishing false information

7) Giving improper advice

8) Misleading the clients in court

9) Non speaking the truth

10) Disowning allegiance to court

11) Moving application without informing that a similar application has been rejected by another
authority

12) Suggesting to bribe the court officials

13) Forcing the procecution witness not to tell the truth.13

CONTEMPT OF COURT AS MISCONDUCT

In the recent case of B. M. Verma v. Uttrakhand Regulatory Commission,14court noted that, it
was given the wide powers available with a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction. In the case of
Court of Its Own Motion v. State dealing with the contempt proceedings involving two senior
advocates, observed that ‘given the wide powers available with a Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction, it cannot afford to be hypersensitive and therefore, a trivial misdemeanor would not
warrant contempt action. Circumspection is all the more necessary because as observed by the
SC in SC Bar Association v. Union of India the Court is in effect the jury, the judge and the
hangman; while in M.R. Parashar H. L. Sehgal it was observed that the Court is also a prosecutor
Anil Kumar Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, reiterates this.

In the most controversial and leading case of R.K. Ananad v. Registrar of Delhi High Court, 15
On 30th May, 2007 a TV news channel NDTV carried a report relating to a sting operation. The
report concerned itself with the role of a defence lawyer and the Special Public Prosecutor in an
ongoing Sessions trial in what is commonly called the BMW case. On 31st May, 2007 a Division
Bench of this Court, on its own motion, registered a writ Petition and issued a direction to the
Registrar General to collect all materials that may be available in respect of the telecast and also
directed NDTV to preserve the original material including the CD/video pertaining to the sting
operation.

The question for our consideration is whether Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan, Senior
Advocates and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate have committed criminal contempt of
Court or not. It was observed that prima facie their acts and conduct were intended to subvert the
administration of justice in the pending BMW case and in particular to influence the outcome of
the pending judicial proceedings. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of
the Constitution proceedings for contempt of Court (as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971) were initiated against Mr. Anand, Mr. Khan and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma

13
Professional Misconduct of Lawyers in India<http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1665/Professional-
misconduct-of-lawyers-in-india.html>
14
B. M. Verma v. Uttrakhand Regulatory Commission. Appeal No. 156 of 2007
15
R.K. Ananad v. Registrar of Delhi HC. 2009. 8 SCC 106
and they were asked to show cause why they should not be punished accordingly. Court said that
Courts of law are structured in such a design as to evoke respect and reverence for the majesty of
law and justice. The machinery for dispensation of justice according to law is operated by the
court. Proceedings inside the courts are always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly
manner.

The very sight of an advocate, who was found guilty of contempt of court on the previous hour,
standing in the court and arguing a case or cross-examining a witness on the same day,
unaffected by the contemptuous behaviour he hurled at the court, would erode the dignity of the
court and even corrode the majesty of it besides impairing the confidence of the public in the
efficacy of the institution of the courts. This necessitates vesting of power with the HC to
formulate rules for regulating the proceedings inside the court including the conduct of advocates
during such proceedings. That power should not be confused with the right to practise law. Thus
court held that there may be ways in which conduct and actions of an advocate may pose a real
and imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings cardinal to any court’s functioning, apart
from constituting a substantive offence and contempt of court and professional misconduct.

In such a situation the court does not only have the right but also the obligation to protect itself.
Hence, to that end it can bar the advocate from appearing before the courts for an appropriate
period of time. In the present case since the contents of the sting recordings were admitted and
there was no need for the proof of integrity and correctness of the electronic materials. Finally
the Supreme Court upheld High Court’s verdict making Anand guilty on the same count. On the
other hand, the Supreme Court let off I U Khan, who was found guilty by the High Court.

MISBEHAVIOUR AS MISCONDUCT

Vinay Chandra Mishra, in re; In this case a senior advocate in on being asked a question in the
court started to shout at the judge and said that no question could have been put to him. He
threatened to get the judge transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought against him in
Parliament. He further said that he has turned up many Judges and created a good scene in the
Court. He asked the judge to follow the practice of this Court. He wanted to convey that
admission is as a course and no arguments are heard, at this stage. But this act was not only the
question of insulting of a Judge of this institution but it is a matter of institution as a whole. In
case dignity of Judiciary is not being maintained then where this institution will stand. The
concerned judge wrote a letter informing the incident to the chief justice of India. A show cause
notice was issued to him.16

Whether the advocate had committed a professional misconduct? Is he guilty of the offence of
the criminal contempt of the Court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice
by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the Court by using insulting, disrespectful and
threatening language, and convict him of the said offence. Since the condemner is a senior
member of the Bar and also adorns the high offices such as those of the Chairman of the Bar
Council of India, the President of the U.P. HC Bar Association, Allahabad and others, his
conduct is bound to infect the members of the Bar all over the country. We are, therefore, of the
view that an exemplary punishment has to be meted out to him. Thus the condemner Vinay
Chandra Mishra is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks
and he shall stand suspended from practising as an advocate for a period of three years.

The list of instances of professional misconduct is not exhaustive, the Supreme court has
widened the scope and ambit of the term misconduct in numerous instances, only few cases has
been elaborated above.

MISCONDUCT IN RELATION TO CLIENTS

The question as to the scope of the lawyer's duty to the client is not new, and may well have
begun with the first client. The extent of duty of the lawyer to be honest in the representation of
the client is often disputed among many writers.'17

In equity the relationship between a lawyer and client gives rise to various fiduciary obligations,
which are enforceable at the suit of the client. The lawyer must avoid situations involving a
conflict of interest between the lawyers' personal interest and his duty to the client, and refrain
from using the fiduciary relationship as a conduit for personal gain.

The Supreme Court of India in Lalit Mohan Das v. The Advocate-General, Orissa' held:

16
Professional Ethics for Lawyer<http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-911-professional-ethics-for-
lawyer.html>
17
Rogers, "The Ethics of Advocacy", 15 L.Q.R. 259 at p. 269 (1899) (quoting Lord Broughan).
"A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must place before the court all
that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even submit that a
particular order is not correct and may ask for review of that order. At the same time, a member
of the Bar is an officer of the court and owes a duty to the court in which he is appearing. He
must uphold the dignity and decorum of the court and must not do anything to bring the court
itself to disrepute."

PROHIBITION FROM APPEARANCE

An advocate is prohibited from appearing in a case where there is a possibility of he becoming a
witness. m This issue involves the consideration of conflicting principles. On the one hand, an
accused person is entitled to select the advocate whom he desires to appear for him.

A lawyer is not duty bound to investigate into the truth and falsehood of the story given by the
client, and so he is bound to defend the client. But this does not mean that the client is entitled to
have the services of a lawyer who disbelieves his story. At the same time an advocate having
moral conviction against the conduct of a particular case may advise the client to approach
another lawyer.

MISCONDUCT IN RELATION TO FEE

A client is duty bound to pay remuneration to his lawyer. Professional ethics demand that the
lawyer should charge reasonable fees from his client. This is because the prospect of extra
ordinarily high legal fees may cause the lawyer to compromise the lawyer's fiduciary obligation
to the client.18 This does not mean that charging exorbitant fees by a pleader amounts to
misconduct, unless there is a clear evidence to prove fraudulent conduct."19

MISAPPROPRIATION OF CLIENT'S MONEY

It is well established through a catena of decisions that misappropriation of client's money is a
grave misconduct.20 In J.S. Jadav v. Mustafa Hazi, 21 the Supreme Court went to the extent of
passing a decree in favour of the client for the amount misappropriated by the lawyer with
interest at 9% per annum. Misappropriation of decree amount payable to the client was held to be
a misconduct's' The payment of misappropriated money or a settlement with the client after the
commencement of the disciplinary proceedings will not absolve him from the guilt and he is
liable to the disciplinary action.' Thus, taking advantage of ignorance and illiteracy of the clients,
demanding from them on false representations that it was required for court purposes, and
misappropriating will amount to professional misconduct.

18
Nancy J. Moore, "Ethics Matters Too: The Significance of Professional Regulation of Attorney Fees and Costs in
Mass Tort Litigation.
19
A Pleader v. The Judges of High Court of Madras,A.I.R.1930 P.C.144,147.
20
B.R. Mahalkari v. Y.B. Zurange, (1997) 11 S.C.C. 109
21
J.S. Jadav v. Mustafa Hazi A.I.R. 1993 SC 1535
The Bar Council Rules provide that an advocate shall not do anything abusing or taking
advantage of the confidence reposed on him by the client. Hence an advocate who is authorized
to draw money from court due to the client has the duty to pay him the same.22

DEFICIENCY IN LEGAL SERVICE

The optimal object in regulating legal services ensures planning for better performance of their
commitments and for and for that we shall then extend the consideration, and shall give more
requisite attention to have control over quality, quantity and cost of legal services; to the fairness
of contracts; to the fairness in competition.

The Indian Supreme Court in N. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequira, held that a legal practitioner
cannot claim exemption from liability in respect of any loss or injury suffered by the client due
to any negligence in the conduct of his professional duties merely by reason of being a legal
practitioner.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION AS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

A "privileged professional communication" is a protection awarded to a communication between

the legal adviser and the client. It is out of regards to the interest of justice, which cannot go on
without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence in the practice of Courts, and in those matters
affecting rights and obligations, which form the subject matter of all judicial proceedings.

In Indian Law Section 126 to 129 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 deals with the privileged
communication that is attached to the professional communication between a lawyer and its
client. Section 126 and 128 pertains to those circumstances under which a lawyer can give
evidence of such professional communication happened between them.

OTHER MISCONDUCTS

There are certain other conducts which are not expected from a lawyer. Following are some
important judicial decisions, which point out certain other types of misconduct.

SOLICITING, ADVERTISING AND TOUTING

An Advocate is not expected to do or should be allowed to do on his behalf, anything for the
purpose of soliciting clients for his professional services. The Bar Council Rules 23 expressly
prohibit a lawyer from soliciting, advertising and touting. In P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of

22
K.V. Umre v. Venu Bhai, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1154, D.C. No. 3/1983 of Kerala Bar Council.
23
Bar Council of India Rules, R. 36.
Maharashtra24 the court held that touting or appointing touts is inconsistent with the rules
framed under the Advocates Act and such practice would be considered as professional
misconduct

RESTRICTION ON OTHER EMPLOYMENT

An Advocate has a duty to stick on to the profession and elevate it. He is not expected to engage
in other trade or profession or employment, which will bring down the standard of the
profession. The Bar Council Rules expressly places restriction on other employments.25

Thus the Supreme Court in Haniraj L. Chulani (Dr.) v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and
Goa26 has observed that legal profession requires full time attention and would not countenance
an advocate riding two horses or more at a time. The court further said that such a restriction is
for ensuring the full time attention of law practitioners towards their profession and with a view
to bringing out their best so that they can fulfil their role as an officer of the court and can give
their best in the administration of justice.

CASES IN SHORT

In Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry, the Supreme Court made it clear that
writing a letter to his client to send money to bribe the Judge is a serious misconduct. It also held
that legal profession is not a trade or business.

In V.C Ranga Durai v. D Gopalan, the Supreme Court in this case held that a lawyer entrusted
with a brief must follow the norms of professional ethics and must protect the interests of his
clients.

In Mohd. Ismail v. Balarathna, it was held that it amounts to misconduct if an advocate

neglects to furnish requisite documents or material papers despite of repeated adjournments.

In N.G Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde the Supreme Court has made it clear that seeking
repeated adjournments for postponing examination of witnesses present in the Court amounts to
misconduct and an advocate may be punished.

24
P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 110.
25
Bar Council of India Rules, Part V, Rr. 40-44.
26
Haniraj L. Chulani (Dr.) v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (1996) 3 S.C.C. 342 .
D.S Dalal v. State Bank of India. In this case there was a complaint against an advocate that he
misappropriated the amount paid to him towards the filing of suit and professional fees. The
advocate pleaded that the suit papers were misplaced by the High Court Registry. It was duly
established that the suit papers were returned to the advocate for removing objections but the
advocate did not refile the suit for a long time. The Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of
misappropriation of money paid to him by his client and therefore, punished him for professional
misconduct.

L.C Goyal v. Suresh Joshi, In this case the advocate misappropriated the money received as
court-fee. He was held guilty of professional misconduct.

Emperor v. K.C.B,A Pleader. In this case certain tins of ghee were seized by Municipal
authorities on being adulterated and kept under the custody of a Marwari. The advocate falsely
told the Marwari that the Sub-Divisional Office had ordered that the tins to be handed over the
owner. The advocate was held guilty of misconduct

PROCEDURE FOLLOWED ON THE NOTICE OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

The following is the procedure followed-

(1) In exercise of powers under Section 35 contained in Chapter V entitled “conduct of

advocates”, on receipt of a complaint against an advocate (or suo motu) if the State Bar Council
has ‘reason to believe’ that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of “professional or other
misconduct”, disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against him.

(2) Neither Section 35 nor any other provision of the Act defines the expression ‘legal
misconduct’ or the expression ‘misconduct’.

(3) The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council is authorised to inflict punishment,
including removal of his name from the rolls of the Bar Council and suspending him from
practice for a period deemed fit by it, after giving the advocate concerned and the ‘Advocate
General’ of the State an opportunity of hearing.

(4) While under Section 42(1) of the Act the Disciplinary Committee has been conferred powers
vested in a civil court in respect of certain matters including summoning and enforcing
attendance of any person and examining him on oath, the Act which enjoins the Disciplinary
Committee to ‘afford an opportunity of hearing’ (vide Section 35) to the advocate does not
prescribe the procedure to be followed at the hearing.

(5) The procedure to be followed in an enquiry under Section 35 is outlined in Part VII of the
Bar Council of India Rules made under the authority of Section 60 of the Act. Rule 8(1) of the
said Rules enjoins the Disciplinary Committee to hear the concerned parties that is to say the
complainant and the concerned advocate as also the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or
the Advocate General. It also enjoins that if it is considered appropriate to take oral evidence the
procedure of the trial of civil suits shall as far as possible be followed.27

27
Professional Misconduct of Lawyers in India<http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1665/Professional-
misconduct-of-lawyers-in-india.html>