1. The appellant, who appeared before us as a Party-in-Person and practising Advocate, was the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of adjudication dated 15.04.2014 passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in C.C.No.4527 of 2013 filed at the instance of the second respondent.

2. Brief Facts:-

The appellant was the counsel for the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.4527 of 2013. It appears that the 2nd respondent for the reasons known to him substituted the appellant with some other counsel. The subsequent counsel has also filed his vakalat. The case was adjourned by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 15.4.2014 recording the fact that the counsel, by name Mr.S.Jayakumar, has filed vakalat on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 6.6.2014. Thereafter, the appellant sent a letter to the 2nd respondent on 7.5.2014 that his action is against the rule of law. The said letter was followed by filing writ petition before the learned single Judge challenging the adjudication order dated 15.4.2014 passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.