P. KODANDARAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of revision petitions are referred by one of us (Kodandaramayya, J.) as they raise important questions relating to legal profession.

( 2 ) BROADLY two questions arise for our consideration : (1) The scope of enquiry to be made by the Court under O. 3 R. 4, C. P. C. , while granting leave to terminate the appointment of an advocate previously made. (2) Whether an advocate had lien over the papers of his client entrusted to him during the pendency of a case for payment of his fees.

( 3 ) WE have issued notices to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association and the A. P. State Bar Council. They were represented by counsel Sarvasri P. S. Murthy and V. Raghunadha Reddy respectively. Sri V. L. N. G. K. Murthy assisted the court as amicus curiae. We place on record our appreciation of their assistance for deciding these cases.

( 4 ) THE facts leading to the reference may be stated. The petitioner is the plaintiff in all the eleven suits out of which these revision petitions arose. Separate applications are filed in each suit under O. 3 R. 4 (2), C. P. C. , and R. 20-A, Civil Rules of Practice, seeking leave of the court to engage another advocate to conduct these cases. In the said applications respondent 1 is the party-defendant and respondent 2 is the counsel whose appointment is sought to be terminated and he ranks last in the list of respondents where there are more than one defendant. It is averred in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions that respondent 2 is appearing in these suits for the plaintiff and he is not regularly attending the court and hence the plaintiff has to pay day costs to the other side and the plaintiff requested the counsel to return his files. When the advocate tried to assault the petitioner and his brother, a criminal complaint was made. Even then he did not return the files. Subsequently notice was issued to the counsel demanding return of the files but respondent 2 did not return the files and hence these petitions.

( 5 ) COUNTER affidavits were filed by the advocate denying the allegations and stating that he was regularly attending to the cases and the plaintiff did not attend the court and he has to seek adjournments number of times and the petitioner s brother threatened him to assault and take away the files using force and hence he had to seek the help of the Police and also lodged a complaint in the police station, and he also replied to the notice issued to him stating that he was prepared to work until the completion of the cases and he should withdraw the notice dated 5-2-83, and he has no objection for the plaintiff engaging another counsel if the fee is paid but claimed lien on the files till the fee is paid.

( 6 ) NO evidence was adduced in support of these contentions. It is urged before the court below that the plaintiff did not withdraw the notice issued by him and as the notice was not withdrawn the question of respondent attending to the case does not arise and it is further contended that the petitioner must produce the receipts of payment of fee before he could seek permission to change the counsel. On behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff it is contended that the entire fee was paid to the respondent and hence he is bound to deliver the papers and give consent and it is further urged that even though the fee is paid respondent 2 is not giving his consent to engage another advocate. In view of these contentions the court below held that the permission to engage a counsel can be accorded subject to the following terms : 1. The plaintiff shall deposit R2 s fee in the suit into the court on or before 26-3-1984. 2. If the petitioner deposited the suit fee on or before the said date he shall be entitled to engage a counsel of his choice and also to return of the suit records from the possession of R. 2. 3. R2 shall return the records within 15 days from the date of deposit. 4. If the petitioner fails to deposit the fee on or before

Click Here to Read the rest of this document