The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition on a pleader from appearing for a person whose interest is opposed to that of the former client, and the importance of professional ethics in avoiding the use of knowledge obtained in one case to the detriment of the client in another case.

Spencer, J.

1. The petitioner is at the same time the plaintiff in O. S. No. 8 of 1917 on the file of the Subordinate Judges court of Mayavaram and the defendant in O. S. No. 56 of 1920 on the file of the same Court, and the respondents are two vakils practising in that court. The question we have to decide is whether the respondents can, consistently with Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice, appear against the petitioner in the latter suit having already acted for him in the earlier suit. We are informed that both suits are still un-disposed of.

2. The rule declares that a pleader who has advised a party in connection with the institution of a suit, or has drawn pleadings in connection with any such matter, or has acted for him shall not appear in such suit or in any appeal or application for revision arising there from, or in any matter connected therewith for any person whose interest is opposed to that of his former client. It is only where a pleader obtains the consent of the former client or the special leave of the court that an exception to this rule is provided. But it is always open to the pleader to give his former client an opportunity of engaging his services, and if the latter declines to engage him, he may then accept an engagement from his adversary.

3. The lower court dismissed the petitioners application that audience should be refused to the two vakil respondents who have filed O.S. No. 56 of 1920 for the plaintiff in that suit against the petitioner. The subordinate Judges main reasons for his order appear to be that he was not then satisfied that there would be any conflict between their duty in representing the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1917 and in representing his opponent in O.S. No. 56 of 1920. It was argued before him that the contentions that the respondents would as. vakils have to put forward in the one suit would not necessarily be inconsistent with their contentions in the other.

4. We are now in possession of the written statements and the issues in both suits and it seems to me impossible for the respondents to maintain that in supporting the plaintiff on issues 1 and 4 in O.S. No. 56 of 1920 they would not have to take up a position inconsistent with that which forms the basis of the case of the petitioner, plaintiff in O. S. No. 8 of 1917, upon issues 2,3 and 4 in that suit.

5. In O.S. No. 8 of 1917 the plaintiff sued one Tirunarayana Pillai for the possession of certain properties belonging to the estate of one Venkatakrishna Pillai asserting that a deed of indenture to which he was a party in 1905 contained false recitals as to Tirunarayana Pillaiw relationship to the plaintiffs maternal uncle Venkatakrishna Pillai and his adoption to Venkatachalam Pillai.

6. In. O.S. No. 56 of 1920 the plaintiff who is the son of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1917 sues the defendant for an account of the management of his estate alleging that he got title to it under the suit indenture.

7. In both suits questions arise as to the validity and binding character upon the petitioner of the indenture and whether he is estopped by reason of it from questioning the title of the defendant in the former suit and the title of the plaintiff in the second suit.

8. The attitude of the pleaders appearing for the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1920 will, it seems to me, naturally conflict with the attitude they have taken up for the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1917.

9. The matter does not rest there. The petitioner has sworn in his affidavit dated 24-7-1920 that he has given confidential information and disclosed to them the contents of records in his possession for the conduct of O.S. No. 8 of 1917 (See paragraphs 16 to 19 of that affidavit). The 1st respondent denies in paragraphs 12 and 13 of his counter-affidavit dated 23-8-1920 that he received any confidential communications in O.S. No. 8 of 1917 or that he made use of such information when he drafted the plaint in O.S. No. 56 of 1920. If his deniaHs true, I can o