In the above captioned appeal a miscellaneous application has been lodged by the appellants for the rejection of the grievance petition on the allegation that it was presented by the lawyer and not by the respondent himself. The respondent has in reply to the said application not admitted that the grievance petition was presented by the lawyer. It has been argued that the respondent was present alongwith the counsel on the date of presentation of the grievance petition. No doubt, in the order, dated 8-7-1982 when the grievance petition was presented, the presence of the respondent is not recorded but since the respondent has denied the contention of the appellants made in the miscellaneous application that the grievance petition was presented by the lawyer alone, without giving him opportunity to establish that he was present at the time of the presentation of the grievance petition, no final opinion can be formed.
2. However, the objection that since no such plea was taken in the written statement and in the memo of appeal, it cannot be taken in a miscellaneous application, is not acceptable. If in reality the grievance petition was presented by the lawyer alone, no proper grievance petition was pending before the learned lower Court and thus the respondent could not be granted the relief prayed for in the said petition. Since opportunity of producing evidence is to be granted to the parties on the point of presentation of the grievance petition, the case is to be remanded.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded with the direction that it be decided afresh after giving finding if the grievance petition was properly presented or not.
A. E.