ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the return endorsement dated 21.11.2023 in I.A.No……..of 2023 in CMA.No.4 of 2021 on the file the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur.

2. The petitioner herein is the appellant in CMA.No.4 of 2021. Sri Janapati Rama Gopal of Proddatur, as an advocate, filed the said appeal. Later Sri P.Balaji an advocate filed a memo vide IA(SR).No.7041 of 20.11.2023, which reads as follows:-

“It is humbly submitted to the Hon‟ble Court that ONE Janapati rama Gopal of Proddatur obtained the signatures of appellant in some papers and got filed the above C.M.A.No.4/2021 on the file of this Hon‟ble Court with false allegations mentioning my client as appellant without his knowledge. After it came to his notice, he enquired about the advocate who filed the vakalat on his behalf and approached me to file vakalat on his behalf for the purpose of not-pressing the above C.M.A.

Hence I sent my clerk to the earlier counsel who filed the vakalat on behalf of the appellant for the purpose of taking no objection on the vakalat. But the earlier counsel reluctant to give no objection in the vakalat on behalf of appellant. Hence I am filing vakalat on behalf of the appellant without obtaining the no objection on the vakalat from the earlier counsel.

Hence the memo.”

3. The aforesaid advocate filed two petitions under Rule 109(2) and Rule 57 of the Civil Rules of Practice simultaneously. Thereupon, the office of the trial Court took objection on 20.11.2023 as to how the petition is maintainable without having „no objection‟ vakalat and returned the petitions. On 21.11.2023, the petitions were resubmitted stating that it is the right of either party to change Vakalat. Vide SR.No.7088 on 21.11.2023 i.e., on the same day, the petitions were returned with the endorsement that previous objection was not complied.

As such, the petitioner approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the right of the party to change an advocate and that the advocate has no lean on the litigation papers of his client and placed reliance on the decision of Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. M.Rajashekar and Others1 , the relevant part of the decision cited, which reads as follows: 3.

“We have heard Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, learned counsel, on the objection raised by the Registry. The learned counsel submitted that a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. Hence, a party cannot be compelled to obtain ’no

1 ILR 2017 KAR 59

objection’ from the advocate already on record. Insisting for ’no objection’ from the previous advocate will amount to putting a restriction on the right of a party to appoint an advocate of his choice. He sought for overruling of the objection raised by the Registry. In support of his submission, he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in R.D.Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma2, and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A.K.Saxena3, and also a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sri C.V.Sudhindra & Ors. vs M/s Divine Light School for Blind & Ors4.

4. To examine the question raised, it is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court MFA No.6526/2013 in R.D.Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma (supra)

“15. A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.

17. If a party terminates the eng