( 1 ) THESE cases had come up for hearing on 27-7-2001. On that day, neither the counsel for the petitioners nor the petitioners was present. In view of important subject matter involved in these petitions and as larger implication to the profession of the Advocates is involved, this Court felt to take the assistance from one of the counsel from Bar. Accordingly, among the counsel who were present in the Court, Mr. Keshava Bhat was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court and at his request, the matter was adjourned to 3-8-2001. On that day, at the request of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the matter was adjourned to 6-8-2001 with a direction to the Govt. Pleader to get the stage of O. S. No. 2413/1984 pending on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned amicus curiae for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent.

( 3 ) ). The petitioners assailing the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 28-5-1998 in O. S. No. 2413/1994 produced at Annexure D as being illegal, unjustified and unconsitutional have filed these petitions. The case of the petitioners is that the Central Bank of India, a Nationalised Bank filed a suit in O. S. No. 2413/1984 on the file of Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore for recovery of certain amounts of money alleged to be due from an erstwhile partnership firm viz. , Standard Electronic Engineering Corporation and its then Partners and a Private Limited Company which has taken over the said partnership firm as a going concern. The said suit is pending on the file of the respondent. The Ist and 2nd petitioners arrayed as 3rd and 4th defendants in the suit. The defendants were represented in the suit by their counsel viz. , the 3rd petitioner herein. The 3rd petitioner is a registered legal practitioner and among his various clients, he also appears on the panel of Corporation Bank, a nationalised bank, which is not concerned with the present proceedings and it is worthwhile to mention here itself that the said Central Bank of India is not his client.

( 4 ) THE suit has been pending on the file of the respondent since 1984 and it is at the stage of recording the evidence of the defendants /petitioners-1 and 2. The other defendants have led their evidence and several witnesses have already been examined and have also been cross-examined by the petitioners-1 and 2 herein through their advocate viz. , the 3rd petitioner.

( 5 ) STRANGELY and without any objections being raised by any of the parties to the proceedings, the respondent has unilaterally and without any justification raised an objection to the participation of 3rd petitioner and his authority to represent 1st and 2nd petitioners in the said suit on untenable grounds. However, the 3rd petitioner found it appropriate to file a memo before the respondent bringing it to the notice of the respondent that there is no legal bar against Advocates appearing for particular Nationalised Bank from appearing against any other Nationalised Bank and that the Nationalised Banks are distinct entities, separate in its management and other formalities. It is also brought to the notice of the respondent that neither the plaintiff Bank nor the Bank on whose panel the 3rd petitioner appearing have at any time taken exception to his participation in the present proceedings or any other proceedings before any Court. Without taking into consideration the detailed explanation filed by way of memo by the 3rd petitioner, respondent has passed the impugned order dated 28-5-1998 thereby restraining the 3rd petitioner from appearing against the plaintiff Bank and further directed the matter to be posted for evidence of 1st and 2nd petitioners by engaging other counsel.

( 6 ) THE learned amicus curiae contended that 3rd petitioner represented petitioners 1 and 2 throughout the pendency of proceedings before the respondent even earlier and as such, 3rd petitioner has gain