ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. The appellant is an Advocate. Appearing for the State Bank of India as its counsel, he filed the suit, viz., O.S. No. 8/1985 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore to recover a sum of Rs. 2.42 crores and odd against RMT Drill (P) Ltd. and its partners. It is not in dispute that the appellant had issued a Public notice in which he had claimed that C.V. Ramaswami son of Venkatasubba Naidu and others had lost the title deeds and that they intended to alienate the land described in the original sale deed No. 669 dated February 21, 1972 and invited objections. It is not in dispute that the said persons had hypothecated the properties covered by the sale deed with the respondent-Bank and had deposited the title deeds with the respondents and that the appellant had knowledge of it as counsel of the Bank having been engaged in that title suit with the Bank. Obviously, therefore, after going through the publication, the respondents lost confidence in the appellant who had acted against the interest of the Bank. So, the officers had asked him to give "No Objection Certificate" so as to enable them to engage another counsel. Tho