AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is no doubt the language used in the petition was highly improper, and in returning the petition for amendment, the judge adopted the
proper course. As no further immediate action was taken and the petition was not represented, the matter should have been allowed to drop and
not resuscitated after the lapse of several mouths.
Further, we are of opinion that steps should not have been taken against the petitioner under the Legal Practitioners'' Act, so long as it was
possible to take notice of the act in any other way as one committed by a suitor. See the case In re Wallace ILR 20 A 412. It may be added that
the act of the petitioner was not per se sufficient to disqualify him from continuing to be a pleader. We therefore dismiss the charge.