Kerala High Court
M.A.Saji Roshan Advocate vs E.Rafeek on 9 September, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:66353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/18TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2191 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M.A.SAJI ROSHAN ADVOCATE
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O V.A.A AZIZ, KAIRALI,
THIRUVAMPADI POST, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688002.
BY M.A.SAJI ROSHAN ADVOCATE
(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 E.RAFEEK
ADVOCATE SHERIN MANZIL ZILLA COURT ROAD
THATHANPALLY POST, ALLEPPEY, PIN - 688013.
2 SECRETARY
BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN,
HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
3 LAW SECRETARY
LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695001.
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001.
2025:KER:66353
W.P.(C) No.2191/2024
:2:
5 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE,
4TH FLOOR, A-WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001.
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
SRI.PRANOY K.KOTTARAM
SRI.SIVARAMAN P.L
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025 AND THE COURT ON 09.09.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66353
W.P.(C) No.2191/2024
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.2191 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is an Advocate, filed a
complaint against the 1st respondent, who is also an
Advocate. The complaint was filed under the Advocates Act,
1961 before the Bar Council of Kerala. The Bar Council
dropped the proceedings against the 1st respondent and his
juniors. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to
direct the Bar Council of Kerala to take the complaint back in
the files, mark the documents and consider the compalint on
merits.
2025:KER:66353
2. The petitioner alleged that in the year 1995, he
purchased a property from Alli and Vasu. He purchased
90% share in favour of Jubaria, a cousin of the petitioner,
since she was in Dubai. Jubaria was willing to give only one
room on the southern end of the building to the petitioner.
The 1st respondent, with whom the petitioner was practising
as a junior associate, instructed the petitioner to exchange
the room. The 1st respondent instructed document writer
Haneefa to draft a crafty exchange deed.
3. The petitioner alleges that the document writer, on
the instructions of the 1st respondent, drafted an incorrect
exchange deed. In 2017, the 1st respondent fraudulently
transferred a portion of the property offered to the petitioner,
in favour of the 1st respondent's wife. Even though the 1st
respondent promised that the property will be transferred
back, he refused to do so. The petitioner states that the 1st
respondent has thereby committed an offence under Section
2025:KER:66353
35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, the petitioner filed
Ext.R2(a) complaint. The Bar Council of Kerala, however,
dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the 1st
respondent as per Ext.P1 communication.
4. The petitioner states that Ext.P1 is highly illegal
and arbitrary. Instead of stating that the Bar Council has no
reason to believe that the 1st respondent is guilty of
professional or other misconduct, the Council ought to have
gone through the petitioner's complaint and adjudicated the
matter on merits. The Bar Council ought to have considered
the fact that the senior lawyers with number of juniors can
use their juniors for manipulation, contended the petitioner.
5. The 2nd respondent-Secretary, Bar Council of
Kerala resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. The
2nd respondent stated that Ext.P1 is an order passed by the
Bar Council in proceedings initiated under Section 35 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 read with Part VII Chapter I of the Bar
2025:KER:66353
Council of India Rules. There are provisions in the
Advocates Act to challenge such orders before the Bar
Council of India by way of filing a revision. The petitioner,
without availing the statutory remedy of revision under
Section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961, has filed the writ
petition. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. The 1st respondent also filed a counter affidavit.
The 1st respondent stated that he had never appeared or
acted as a counsel or mediator in OS No.97/1997 before the
Principal Sub Court, Alappuzha. The said Suit was filed by
the petitioner for partition. A preliminary decree was passed
on 23.03.2001. The petitioner claimed right over half share
of the plaint schedule property stating that he had paid half of
the sale consideration. The defendants in the Suit asserted
that the entire sale consideration was paid by them.
Subsequently, a final decree was passed. The 1st
respondent denied all the allegations made by the petitioner.
2025:KER:66353
7. I have heard the petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. I have also heard
the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the 4th
respondent and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
appearing for the 5th respondent.
8. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding
dropping of a complaint filed by him against the 1st
respondent under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The
petitioner as well as the 1st respondent are practising
Advocates. The petitioner would allege that the 1st
respondent has crafted a document with the help of a
document writer and fraudulently transferred a portion of the
property to which the petitioner is entitled, in favour of the 1st
respondent's wife. The petitioner alleges that the 1st
respondent make his juniors, clerk and office staff to do
illegal activities.
2025:KER:66353
9. The 1st respondent filed his version in the Bar
Council. The Bar Council, after considering the complaint of
the petitioner and the version filed by the 1st respondent,
dropped the proceedings which was communicated as per
Ext.P1.
10. The main grievance of the petitioner is on the
entitlement of property based on a partition deed. The parties
to the Suit are relatives. The 3rd defendant in the Suit was
the first wife of the petitioner. Considering the facts of the
complaint, the Bar Council of Kerala decided to drop the
proceedings.
11. Going through the pleadings in the writ petition, I
find that the allegations raised by the petitioner revolves
around a conveyance deal and partition of property.
Considering the nature of the allegations made by the
petitioner, those disputes are to be resolved by a civil court
after appreciating evidence that may be adduced. The said
2025:KER:66353
disputes cannot be adjudicated in a summarily manner under
the Advocates Act.
12. The Bar Council of Kerala in its wisdom decided
not to proceed with the complaint against the 1st respondent.
I do not find any illegality in the decision taken by the Bar
Council. The Bar Concil has a statutory discretion to
proceed with the complaint or drop the proceedings taking
into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the
case. Considering the nature of allegations, the Bar Council
has decided to drop the proceedings. The petitioner has a
remedy by way of revision before the Bar Council of India
under Section 48A of the Advocates Act. The petitioner has
not exhausted that remedy.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/01.09.2025
2025:KER:66353
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2191/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
30/10/2023 FROM BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE
LETTER HEAD OF ADVOCATE E.RAFEEK DATED
02/05/2016 TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REMARK SUBMITTED BY
ADVOCATE E.RAFEEK DATED 27TH FEB 2023
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE
PROPERTY IN O.S 97/97 OF SUB COURT
ALAPPUZHA DATED 19TH AUGUST 2006
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT FOR
THE ROOM 1118/18 FROM 2007 TO 2016
ISSUED FROM ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY
DATED 1ST DECEMBER 2015
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT FOR
THE ROOM 1118/18 FROM 2016 TO 2017
ISSUED FROM ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY
DATED 25TH MAY 2016
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION
DATED 12TH DECEMBER 2020
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN AIR
1999 SC 2866 DECIDED ON 20/03/1997
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
02.12.2022
Exhibit R2(b) A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2024
Exhibit R2(c) A COPY OF THE REMARKS FILED JOINTLY BY
THE 1ST AND 3RD OPPOSITE PARTIES DATED
27.02.2023
Exhibit R2(d) A COPY OF THE REMARKS FILED BY THE 2ND
OPPOSITE PARTY IN THE COMPLAINT DATED
28.04.2023
2025:KER:66353
Exhibit R2(e) A COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 09.06.2023
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.03.2001 IN O.S. NO. 97/1997 BEFORE
THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit-R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.08.2006 IN I.A. NO. 622/2002 IN
O.S. NO. 97/1997 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit-R1(c) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.01.2024
PASSED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit-R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED
03.12.2015 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND JUBAIRI SYED MUHAMMED.
Exhibit-R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.
895/2017 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit-R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.11.2022 IN I.A. NO. 1/2021 IN O.S.
NO. 97/1997 BEFORE THE SUB COURT,
ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit-R1(g) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
NOTARY REGISTER.
Exhibit-R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
02.12.2022 IN C.P. NO. 137/2022 BEFORE
THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit-R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
23.12.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.
Exhibit-R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
14.11.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION.
2025:KER:66353
Exhibit-R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.M.P
NO. 3841/2022 BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit-R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.10.2022 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 2830/2022
BEFORE THE SESSION COURT, ALAPPUZHA
NOW PENDING AS S.C NO. 1036/2022
BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit-R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP
COMMUNICATION OF THE PETITIONER
DEMANDING MONEY AND OTHER THINGS FOR
STOPPING HIS COMPLAINTS.
Exhibit-R1(n) THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ADV. V.I.
CHITHRANJALI TAKING PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
BOARD DISPLAYED AT THE 1ST
RESPONDENT'S OFFICE AT ALAPPUZHA.
Exhibit-R1(o) A COMPUTER PRINT-OUT OBTAINED FROM THE
WEBSITE
HTTPS://MY.CLEVELANDCLINIC.ORG/HEALTH/
DISEASES/9599-DELUSIONAL-DISORDER
Exhibit-R1(p) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
7.03.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit-R1(q) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED
21.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE ALAPPUZHA
MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit-R1(r) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.
424/2023 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,
ALAPPUZHA.
