Resentment & grievances aired against legal fraternity

1. 1
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 002
Telephone Nos.:011-49225000
Telefax No.:011-49225011
E-mail ID: info@barcouncilofindia.org
Website: www.barcouncilofindia.org
Prof. [Dr.] Shiv Mohan Sharma s/o Late Sh. Baru Ram Sharma,
M.A., Ph.D., Principal Kamla Lohtia Sanatan Dharam College,
Subhash Nagar, Daressi Road, Ludhiana, r|o Plots no.5-6,
Sartaj Nagar, Gali no.2, Noorwala Road, Shivpuri Byepass,
Ludhiana, Phone (College): 2741746, 2745688, (M: +91 98769
48001, 94177 03243) -Revision Petitioner
Vs
Vipan Sood, Advocate s/o Sh. Kulbhushan Sood, r/o B-IV-
1164, Mohalla Sudan, Ludhiana
2nd Address: Vipan Sood, Advocate, Junior to Sh. Abdul
Majid Thind, Advocate, District Courts, Ludhiana
3rd Address Vipan Sood, Advocate, Chamber no.208, 2nd
Floor, Lawyers Chamber Complex, District Courts, Ludhiana
-Respondent
REVISION PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.2.2015,
PASSED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH, WHEREBY THE COMPLAINT OF THE REVISION
PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED
REVISION PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER COLLECTED IN PERSON
ON 24.02.2015
CLAIMS IN REVISION:
1.To set aside the order of the Hon’ble Bar Council of
Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby the complaint of
the Revision Petitioner was dismissed vide Resolution
passed in the General House
2.To accept the Revision with costs

2. 2
3.To cancel the license of the respondent as serious &
proved allegations of gross professional misconduct,
dereliction of noble office are fully established
against him, to impart long eluding justice to the
Revision Petitioner in equity, good conscience & law
Respectfully shweth:
1~This Revision Petition is being filed by the Revision
Petition against the order dated 01.2.2015, with greatest
promptitude & least delay as the Revision Petitioner has
collected the same by hand on 24.2.2015.
2~This is the second time that the Bar Council of Punjab &
Haryana, Chandigarh, has dismissed the complaint of the
Revision Petitioner against the respondent despite the fact
that clear cut complaint is made out against him, despite
the fact that the Revision Petitioner had moved the second
complaint to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana,
Chandigarh, saddled with concrete evidence. In fact the
Revision Petition is being made a scapegoat of active
politics rampant in the Bar. It may be added that Ludhiana
Bar and present Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of Punjab
& Haryana, Chandigarh namely Mr. P S Ghumman, Advocate,
(who was earlier President of Ludhiana Bar), has played
active part in dismissal of the complaints to deny fair
justice to the Revision Petitioner.
3~The respondent is well aware that his God father are
present in the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh,
as such he is openly misusing his professional ethics.
4~The Revision Petitioner wants to know as to whether an
Advocate has fundamental right &/or any authority to take
along the court files to his/her house, take out documents
from the court files (which are subject matter of already
subjudice cases-whether revenue, civil or criminal)? The
respondent in active connivance with Nitin Sood, who was
earlier serving as Ad-hoc Ahlmad (daily wages)(hailing from

3. 3
the same locality & same Sood family (now settled in
Australia) in the court of Sh. D.P. Singla, the then CJ JD,
Ludhiana, had taken away the court file to his house & by
tampering with the court file, he had placed certain
documents despite the fact that the same were earlier not
placed on the case file along with the interim injunction
application dated 22.12.1999. Tragically these very
documents were made basis of the judgment in the said suit,
despite the fact that the same could not be read in
evidence. These documents became eye sores for the Revision
Petitioner as had the respondent not been able to insert
them the respondent would never have been able to obtain
the said judgment favoring his father in law.
5~Sir, the Revision Petitioner is ready to get his lie-
detector conducted but so should be the case with the
respondent to reveal the truth.
6~Sir, the Revision Petitioner- a permanent resident of
Ludhiana & Citizen of India- a man of letters but having no
background about law had moved a fervent complaint to the
Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, against the
respondent on the allegations of the gross professional
misconduct in a litigation involving the Revision
Petitioner & father in law of the respondent (who is on an
Advocate & on the rolls of the Bar Council of Punjab &
Haryana, Chandigarh. The Revision Petitioner had earlier
too moved similar complaint against the respondent qua his
professional misconduct but the same had been summarily
dismissed for extraneous reasons to appease him.
7~The respondent who is son in law of Ashok Kumar Duggal of
M/s. Duggal Fabricators (plaintiff in the lower court in a
purely false & frivolous suit, “Ashok Kumar Vs Shiv Mohan
Sharma etc.”), had tagged four documents with the case file
by tampering with them to help his father in law out of
way, thereby putting to tatters the noble profession of

4. 4
advocacy. These four tampered documents have caused great
loss to the health, wealth & efforts put in for the past 15
years by the Revision Petitioner. The residential house of
the Revision Petitioner has been totally damaged due to the
ill acts of the father in law of the respondent. The
respondent indulged in tampering with the most valuable
court documents after that date proclaiming that being an
Advocate he is above law & that no one can dare take any
action against him, what to talk of the Revision Petitioner
& openly challenged the Revision Petitioner openly yelling
that he has close nexus with the legal luminaries,
therefore, the complaint of the Revision Petitioner will
meet the same fate. Rather than the Revision Petitioner, it
is Vipan Sood, who is in the bad & unsolicited habit of
tampering with important cut files & changing the important
documents to the dissipation of the Revision Petitioner.
8~The Revision Petitioner had earlier moved similar petition
titled as, “S M Sharma Vs Vipan Sood, ”against the
respondent, bearing receipt no. 0304425 dated 19.10.2001 CC
9.3.2001, due to the reason that respondent was in
unprofessional manner helping his father in law Ashok Kumar
Duggal in getting undue advantage in the said case, to cause
undue & unbearable loss to the Revision Petitioner but the
said complaint had been dismissed vide End. no.5/2 dated
28.5.2002, without affording personal opportunity to the
Revision Petitioner to put forth his case. The Revision
Petitioner flashed protest telegram dated 25.6.2002 to the
Chairman, Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana.
9~When the Revision Petitioner received & perused the
certified copy of the interim stay order dated 1.4.2003
passed by the court of Sh. D P Singla, CJ JD, Ludhiana, he
was deeply taken aback & shocked to wits, to know that
though the following four documents were not on the case

5. 5
file at the time of moving interim stay application dated
22.12.1999 (copy of application dated 17.2.2000 moved by the
Revision Petition in the court is attached in which
documents placed on the file find mention) but ironically
they did find mention in impugned exparte stay order dated
01.4.2003, while the evidence started from 28.7.2003. The
following documents have been cleverly added later on to
favor the plaintiff who is father in law of the respondent:
a) Two sworn affidavits executed on stamp papers worth
Rs.10/- each purchased on 25.7.2000, by neighbors in
favor of Ashok Kumar Duggal-respondent, got typed &
executed on 25.7.2000
b) Undated letter purported to have been written by
Mohalla Wallahs to Commissioner, Municipal Corp.,
Ludhiana, without any receipt & entry no. of the
Municipal Corp., Ludhiana.
c) Locality site plan dated 10.8.2000
d) Exempted letter of P.P.C.B., Patiala, issued to M/s.
Duggal Fabricators, dated 11.9.2000, for objection
regarding 3rd measurement.
Is this not clear cut case of tampering with the case file.
Then, ask the respondent Vipan Sood to define the word,
“tampering”
After obtaining the certified copy of the impugned
order dated 1.4.2003, the Revision Petitioner had moved
complaint to this effect to Hon’ble Mr. Justice N K Sodhi
of Pb. & Haryana High Court on 26.5.2003 & the then
District Judge, Ludhiana S Baldev Singh- since elevated to
Hon’ble Pb. & Haryana High Court. Vide order dated
23.6.2003, S Baldev Singh, the then District Judge,
Ludhiana, summoned &inspected the case file & found the
allegations of fie tampering to be genuine & ordered to
expedite the case. It is clear that S Baldev Singh, the

6. 6
then District Judge, Ludhiana found something fishy which
prompted him to make the necessary orders.
When the final judgment of the said injunction suit was
announced on 17.7.2012 (after nine long years) by Dr. B K
Sharma, CJ JD, Ludhiana, further shock was in store for him
as it was not up to the judicious mark & was rather biased
& slanted towards the plaintiff Ashok Kumar Duggal due to
the undue influence of his son in law/ respondent. It is
not out of place to refer to Ex.P37 report bearing no.18297
dated 11.9.2000 submitted by The Senior Environmental
Engineer of Punjab Pollution Board, Patiala, after visiting
the spot. The operative part of the report is crystal clear
& reproduced below for your ready reference, mentioned in
Para no.26 & 27 at page no.14 of the judgment under attack:
“The industry was visited by the Senior Environmental
Engineer along with the other officers of the board on
16.08.2000 and measure the noise level at various points
i.e. inside the factory, outside the factory and in the
drawing room of the Revision Petitioner. The analysis
results of the noise levels (copy enclosed) reveal that
the noise levels generated by the industry have negligible
effect outside the factory building whereas the noise
level due to other sources like traffic on G.T. Road, loud
speakers, water motors being operated by the residents in
opposite house of Revision Petitioner and cooler fan in
the Revision Petitioner’s house create more sound, thus
resulting in a higher back ground noise level in the
area.”
Mukesh Kumar, ATP, MCL, had issued the NOC dated 5.5.1998
to Ashok Kumar. The Revision Petitioner wants to know as to
where is the evidence & cross examination on both these
documents as proper evidence was required to be led on
these material documents & cross examination of the
witnesses conducted. How could the ld. Judge make these

7. 7
documents the basis of his judgment as it is mere piece of
paper as no evidence was led to prove them?
Similarly, at point no.13,14 in page no.9, i.e. (Ex.P39
& P40), as to whether any evidence was led to prove the
genuineness of these documents & whether cross examination
of these witnesses namely Jagmohan Singh & Jaswant Singh,
who produced their affidavits dated 25.7.2000, was allowed
to prove their veracity?
PW2 Jaswant Singh has admitted in his cross examination
that he had not submitted any alleged affidavit.
“Ex. P40, Ex. P39 i.e. affidavits of PW2 Jaswant Singh &
PW3 Jagmohan Singh respectively as well as Ex. P37. (report
no. 18297 dated 11.9.2000 submitted by Senior Environmental
Engineer, Punjab Pollution Board, Patiala) which documents
have also in fact been tampered with by Advocate Vipan Sood
i.e. the son-in-law of the plaintiff to make out the case
in favor of the plaintiffs as the same were not tagged with
the case file by them at the time of grant of ad-interim
injunction passed in their favor on 22.12.1999”.
The same order was passed by the court of Sh. S.S.
Dhaliwal, A.D.J., Ludhiana, on 21.7.2014 while dismissing
the appeal of the Revision Petitioner.
a) The plaintiff Ashok Kumar Duggal, an industrialist,
managed to get the residential plot meas. 194 Sq. yards
converted into commercial building without the
requisite permission of the Commissioner, M.C.L., which
fact was completely ignored by ld. Judge in the civil
suit, “Ashok Kumar Vs Shiv Mohan Sharma & others.”
b) Ashok Kumar, an industrialist, managed to raise
construction of above 50feet in illegal &un authorized
manner, without getting the site plan sanctioned from
M.C.L., which building is in complete violation of the
building byelaws of M.C.L. It was possible only due to
his close proximity of erring Municipal officials.

8. 8
c) Ashok Kumar, an industrialist, did not obtain the
requisite N.O.C. from Fire Brigade, Ludhiana, before
raising the superstructure.
d) N.O.C. cannot be issued to a commercial building, which
violates the building byelaws, but Mukesh Chander,
A.T.P., issued forged, fabricated & wrong N.O.C. dated
5.5.1998, in which it is remarked that the building is
beyond the 100 meters periphery of G T Road.
e) It is added that one of the defendants in the said suit
i.e. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sharma had moved application
dated 17.4.2003 & deposited Rs.500/- with M.C.L. & got
the length of the area from the said commercial
building to the G.T. Road measured. The Certificate
issued by M.C.L. certifying that the site in question
is within the radius of 100 meters from G.T. Road
Ludhiana. Ex. DW3/79 & 80 are the copies of the
application & receipt & Ex. DW3/81 is said certificate.
f) It is added that Vigilance Bureau had conducted
enquiry against Mukesh Chander, A.T.P., M.C.L.,
Ludhiana & FIR no. 37/2006 was registered against him
u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) 88 P.C. Act,1988 & during the
enquiry he was found to be guilty of corruptive
practices- Ex. DW3/5/1,5/2 & 5/3.
g) It is also added that the residents of the locality
where the property of the plaintiffs is situated had
moved a written complaint to Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Ludhiana, on 7.5.2001, which is Ex.DW3/47.
Sh. D.K. Sharma, X-En, M.C.L., had conducted enquiry in
the said complaint & submitted his report Ex.DW3/48 &
Ex. DW3/49, in which he clearly mentioned as under:
h) “--- due to running of machines in the premises of M/s.
Duggal Fabricators, adjoining the house of Prof. Shiv
Mohan Sharma, vibration and throbbing of walls of Prof.
Shiv Mohan Sharma’s house were felt by me. This has

9. 9
caused cracks in the walls of the house of Prof. Shiv
Mohan Sharma.
i) Further operation of the machines by Duggal Fabricators
will cause widening of cracks the endangering of life
of Prof. Shiv Mohan Sharma.”
However, the ld. Presiding Officer rather being
concerned with the life, safety & property of the
Revision Petitioner Prof. Shiv Mohan Sharma, acted in
biased manner. He intentionally ignored this material
evidence, having passed the judgment against the
Revision Petitioner & also dismissed the counter claim
of the Revision Petitioner/ counter claimant despite
the fact that the Revision Petitioner/ defendant Prof.
Shiv Mohan Sharma had got the clerk of M.C.L. examined
in the suit.
j) The plaintiffs & their counsel did not appear on three
dates of hearing (17.4.2012, 23.4.2012 & 28.4.2012) but
again acting in wrong manner the ld. Presiding Officer
neither made note thereof in the Zimni orders dated nor
took serious note of this lapse on part of the
plaintiffs & their counsel.
k) The Revision Petitioner/defendant no.1 had relied upon
the scintillating judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, Hon’ble High Court on the issues of unauthorized
construction, noise pollution etc. but the ld.
Presiding Officer totally ignored these hard hitting
judgments which smacks of his mind biased towards the
Revision Petitioner.
l) It is added that the ld. Presiding Officer also ignored
the order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the court of S.
Gurbir Singh, Add. Dist. Judge, Ludhiana, in the Misc.
Civil Appeal beating MCA no.18/7.5.2003, “Shiv Mohan
Sharma etc. Vs Ashok Kumar Duggal etc.,” without

10. 10
assigning any reason. The said order dated 12.1.2007 is
Ex. DW3/147.
m) The following illegality on part of the ld. Presiding
Officer speaks volume about his biased attitude as
despite the fact that the Revision Petitioner had
relied upon in his defense in this suit the judgment
dated 19.1.2010 passed by the court of Sh. J P S
Wehniwal, the then CJ SD, Ludhiana, in the suit of the
present plaintiffs, bearing CS no. 377/ 7.3.2005, RBT
no. 515/ 22.3.2006, titled as, “Ashok Kumar Duggal Vs
M.C., Ludhiana,” whereby the ld. Court of Sh. JPS
Wehniwal, CJ SD, Ludhiana, had declared that the
building of the present plaintiffs is un authorized &
be demolished & directed the plaintiffs to stop
carrying on their business & fabrication activities in
the said building. The ld. Court of Sh. JPS Wehniwal,
CJ SD, Ludhiana, had made order of demolition of the
same building on the same facts despite the fact that
the Revision Petitioner was not party to it.
n) All these material facts were given complete goby by
the corrupt Judge Dr. B K Sharma for extraneous reasons
as he not only gave a long handle to Ashok Kumar,
industry owner but also saved the erring & corrupt
officials of M.C.L., only in view of their close
proximity with him.
o) The illegality by Dr. B K Sharma speaks volume about
his biased attitude as despite the fact that the
Revision Petitioner had relied upon, in his defense in
the suit, the judgment dated 19.1.2010 passed by Sh. J
P S Wehniwal, then CJ SD, Ludhiana, in the suit of the
present plaintiffs, bearing CS no. 377/ 7.3.2005, RBT
no. 515/ 22.3.2006, titled as, “Ashok Kumar Duggal Vs
M.C., Ludhiana,” whereby Sh. JPS Wehniwal, had rightly
declared that the building of Ashok Kumar is un

11. 11
authorized & be demolished & directed him to stop
carrying on their business & fabrication activities in
the said building. It is to be seen that despite the
said clear-cut directions what compelled Dr. B K Sharma
to ignore the same while deciding the suit.
Had the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana Chandigarh
taken action against the respondent in the year 2002
itself, these four tampered documents would not have become
eyesores for the Revision Petitioner. It is apposite to add
here that neither the plaintiff Ashok Kumar Duggal nor
Ludhiana Municipal Corporation have been able to adduce any
evidence to prove these two documents i.e. NOC & Letter of
Exemption from P.P.C.B., Patiala so how could the ld. Judge
make these tampered document as the basis of his judgment?
The Revision Petitioner is hankering after justice for the
past fifteen long years but justice is still eluding him.
It is high time that in order to maintain dignity of law
stringent action be taken against the erring respondent
before it is too late.
BEING AN INNOCENT & AGILE CITIZEN OF INDIA THE
REVISION PETITIONER HAS FUNDAMNTAL RIGHT TO JUSTICE.
In the light of the above true narrations, saddled
with concrete documentary evidence, the Revision Petitioner
humbly supplicates that the respondent be held guilty of
gross professional misconduct, dereliction of his noble
office; his license be ordered to be cancelled; he be
ordered to be dismembered from the District Bar
Association, Ludhiana so as to impart long eluding justice
to the Revision Petitioner in equity, good conscience &
law.
Ludhiana
Dt.: .3.15 Revision Petitioner
In person
Encls.:

12. 12
Copies of the judgments of
1)Court of Sh. D P Singla, CJ JD, Ludhiana, dated
01.4.2003;
2)Court of Dr. B.K. Sharma, ACJ SD, Ludhiana, dated
17.7.2012
3)Court of S. Gurbir Singh, A.S.J., Ludhiana, dated
January, 2007
4)Court of Sh. JPS Wehniwal, CJ JD, Ludhiana
5)Court of Sh. S S Dhaliwal, ADJ, Ludhiana
Sworn affidavit in support of the complaint enclosed

13. 13
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
New Delhi – 110 002
[Dr.] Shiv Mohan Sharma
Vs
Vipan Sood, Advocate
Re: REVISION PETITION
AFFIDAVIT
I, Prof. [Dr.] Shiv Mohan Sharma s/o Late Sh. Baru Ram
Sharma, M.A., Ph.D., Principal Kamla Lohtia Sanatan Dharam
College, Subhash Nagar, Daressi Road, Ludhiana, r|o Plots
no.5-6, Sartaj Nagar, Gali no.2, Noorwala Road, Shivpuri
Byepass, Ludhiana, Phone (College): 2741746, 2745688, (M:
+91 98769 48001, 94177 03243), do hereby solemnly declare &
affirm as under:
Enclosed Revision Petition has been got drafted by me
personally & I have signed it after reading & understanding
its contents minutely & be read part of this affidavit
being not repeated for sake of brevity.
Deponent
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Ludhiana on .3.15 that the contents of
this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my
knowledge & information
Deponent