Back
MANIPUR HIGH COURT
K.H. Nobin Singh, J.
Shir Ashem Shyamkesho Singh
and Ors. —Applicants
versus
Thockchom Ranjan Meetei and
Ors. —Respondents
State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner (Co-operation), Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal & Ors.
—Official Respondents
M.C. (W.P. (C) No. 147 of 2016 with (Ref:- W.P. (C) No. 202 of 2015)
Decided on 8.7.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicants :Shri Ph. Sanajaoba, Advocate
For the Respondents:Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
A litigant must have freedom to change his Advocate when he feels that Advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 3 Rule 4(2)—Bar Council of India Rules, 1975—Rule 39 of Chapter-II of Part-VI—Disengagement of Counsel—An Advocate does not only represent his client but he is also an officer of court—In any matter in which he is engaged, he has to assist court till his Vakalatnama is determined in accordance with law—Normal conduct of a client is that if he wishes to change his Counsel for some reason or the other, he should approach him for return of brief and to obtain “No Objection” from him—In case his counsel returns brief, it is well and good and if he refuses to return brief or refuses to give “No Objection”, client may invoke provisions of Order 3 Rule 4 of CPC to redress his grievances—However, in present case, applicants have failed to that and without determining appointment of their earlier Counsel they had moved application for deleting their names from array of parties in writ petition through another Advocate which is unfair and unreasonable on part of applicants—The moment an Advocate is engaged, client is expected to be fair and reasonable to him and ought to give proper instructions accordingly. (Paras 4 and 6)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908— Order 3 Rule 4(2)—Bar Council of India Rules, 1975—Rule 39 of Chapter-II of Part-VI—Disengagement of Counsel—For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue engagement of a particular Advocate, it would be a professional requirement consistent with dignity of profession that he would return brief to client and it is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative—Application allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs. (Paras 6 and 7)
Result: Application allowed.
K.H. Nobin Singh, J.— Heard Shri Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Shri Ng. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ respondents.
2. It is unfortunate that this court is called upon to decide an issue which has arisen out of the relation between the applicants and their counsel, Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate and has nothing to do with the merit of the case. Before bringing the issue to this court, the same could have been resolved amicably by them outside the court.
3. This is an application filed by the applicants who are the petitioner Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 202 of 2015 praying for deleting the name of their counsel, Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate from their vakalatnama filed before this court in the said writ petition on the ground that they have already disengaged him as their conducting counsel and accordingly, they requested him to issue a “No Objection” so that they could engage a new Advocate of their choice but to no effect. In other words, the said application appears to have been filed for determining the vakalatnama executed by them in favour of their counsel. Denying the averments made therein, a reply affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 11 has been filed wherein it is stated that the applicants have not given any instruction to Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate for moving an application before this court for their withdrawal from the case or for deletion of their names from the array of parties and their request for giving “No Objection” was turned down by him on the ground that the engagement of another Advocate for the purpose of withdrawal from the writ petition would tantamount to making tacit aspersions against him inasmuch as people are very likely to falsely take that he has held up their instructions to withdraw from the case, thereby causing serious prejudice to his conduct and integrity. It is further stated therein that although it is the right or the discretion of the applicants to withdraw from the case or engage any Advocate of their choice but the same could not be allowed to be exercised whimsically without any reasonable cause inasmuch as such irresponsible action of unscrupulous litigants is likely to jeopardize the conduct and integrity of sincere Advocates who are none other than officers of the court and therefore, allowing the applicants to disengage him and appoint another Advocate in his place for the purpose of withdrawal from the case or for deletion of their names from the array of parties in the writ petition would, by no stretch of imagination, be a reasonable cause or a good ground. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the instant application be rejected in the interest of justice.
4. Although it is nowhere mentioned in the application that the same has been filed under the provisions of CPC, it is the provisions of Order 3 Rule 4(2) of CPC which provide that appointment of an Advocate shall be filed in the court and shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the court by a writing signed by the client or the Advocate as the case may be. An Advocate does not only represent his client but he is also an officer of the court. In any matter in which he is engaged, he has to assist the court till his vakalatnama is determined in accordance with law. Order 3 Rule 4(2) of CPC 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, on until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.”
5. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Saxena -Vs- Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264. it has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that they have the right to appoint any
