Fact of this case -In support of his case P.D. Gupta filed affidavit of Anand Prakash Bansal wherein it is claimed that saledeeds executed by Vidya Wati in favour of P.D. Gupta and his son- in low Suresh Kumar Gupta were without any pressure from any one and were by free will of vidya Wati. P.D. Gupta has claimed that complaint filed by Ram Murti is motivated and he himself had no title to the properties of srikishan Dass being no relation of his and the will propounded by him had been found to be forged as opined by the CFSL\CBI laboratory. The fact that the will propounded by the court. In the affidavit filed by P.D. Gupta in answer to the complaint of Ram Murti he has stated that "Lala Srikishan Dass left behind his sister Smt. Vidya Wati who succeeded to the estate on death of Lala Srikishan Dass and took over the entire movable and immovable estate. Thereafter the complainant and two other persons propounded will of Lala Srikishan Dass". This statement of P.D. Gupta has been verified by him as true and correct to his knowledge. It does appear to us to be rather odd for a lawyer to verify such facts to his knowledge. It is claimed that when Srikishan Dass died, subject immovable property was plot bearing No.4858-A, 24 Daryaganj measuring 1500 sq. feet and the same was got mutated in the name of Vidya Wati in the records of the Municipal corporation of Delhi and then she got plan sanctioned from the Municipal corporation of Delhi for construction of the house on this plot and which she did construct and got completion certificate on August 28, 1981. It is peculiar, rather astounding, how could Vidya Wati get the property of Srikishan Dass mutated in her name when she is yet to be granted letters of administration or declaration to her title. 1 of 6 PETITIONER: P.D. GUPTA Vs.RESPONDENT: RAM MURTI & ANR. DATE OFJUDGMENT: 08/07/1997BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA ACT: HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997Present: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. WadhwaYogesh K. Jain, Sr. Adv., Pravir K. Jian, M.A. Khan, B.K.Sharma, and Rajiv Dutta, Addvs. with him for the appellantIn-person for the Respondent in No.1The following Judgment of the court was delivered :D.P. WADHWA, J. The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi. Heha filed this appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act,1961 ( in short the Act,) against order dated May 4, 1996of the Disciplinary Committee of Bar council of India holding him guilty of misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of one Year. This order by the Bar council of India was passed as the Disciplinary committed of the Bar council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint received by it with in a period of one year and proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar council of India under section 36 B of the Act. Section 36 B enjoins upon the Disciplinary committee of state Bar council to dispose of the complaint receive by it under section 35 of the Act expeditiously and in any case to conclude the proceedings within one case to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint .