2. Shri Radhey Shyam Gaur, Advocate, Bikaner (for short Shri Gaur), who is non-petitioner No. 1 in this revision was conducting a suit on behalf of the Union of India. On May 10, 1978, Shri Lalit Prashad, Advocate submitted an application on behalf of the Deputy General Manager, Northern Railway, dated April 25, 1978 that leave may be granted for determining the power of Shri Gaur, and that he may be permitted to conduct the proceedings in the suit on behalf of the Union of India. In reply to that application, Shri Gaur stated that he has no objection if his appointment is terminated, but he should be paid his full fee and expenses. On September 30, 1978, Shri Gaur submitted an application that the application filed for terminating his appointment should be decided early. The learned Civil Judge, by his order dated October 27, 1978 directed that the Railway Administration shuold pay full fee and expenses (if any) to Shri Gaur, that in future, Shri Lalit Prashad, Advocate, will act on its behalf in the suit and that the appointment of Shri Gaur is terminated.

3. Being aggrieved by the order, directing payment of full fee to Shri Gaur, Union of India has come up in revision to this Court with a prayer to delete the direction relating to the payment of the full fee to Shri Gaur.

4. Mr. L.R. Bhansali, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while granting leave for determining the appointment of Shri Gaur, the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to direct the payment of fee to him. He further submitted that according to the terms and conditions relating to engagement of Advocates for District Courts, prescribed by the competent authority, only half fee is payable after the written statement is filed, and, therefore, there was no occasion to order for the payment of full fee to Shri Gaur.

5. I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Bhansali. I regret my inability to agree with him.

6. Order III, r. 4(2) C.P.C. which is relevant for the present purpose, reads as under :

"(2) Every such appointment shall be (filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1) be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are entitled so far as regards the client."

According to sub-rule (2) of r. 4 of O. III, the appointment of a pleader may be put an end to by the client or the pleader but in either case this can be done only with the leave of the Court. The granting of leave for the termination of the appointment of the pleader/counsel/lawyer/Advocate being within the power of the court, the court may grant the leave subject to such conditions as it thinks fit.

7. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Firm Mohan Lal Sewlal vs. Probodh Krishna (1), observed as under :

"It is true that before the Court grants the leave to discharge a lawyer under O. 3, R. 4 C.P.C. the Court is entitled to make suitable provisions for the payment of the sums due to the outgoing pleader in respect of the service rendered by him and in respect of the costs incurred by him on behalf of his client. We also agree with Mr. Ghosh that as a subterfuge the petitioner cannot engage another lawyer without formally discharging the previous lawyer and without arranging for payment of the sums due to him."

The provisions of O. III, r. 4 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Nagpur High Court in In re Application of an Advocate to retire from the case (2). In para 6 of the report, it was observed as under :

"The leave of the Court is, however, necessary for the termination of the appoint