IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 17233 OF 2024 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

APARNA

DAUGHTER OF PURUSHOTHAM M.P.,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO. 574,

10^TH CROSS, 7^TH BLOCK,

JAYANAGAR, YEDIYUR POST,

BENGALURU-560 082.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by

VANAMALA

N 1. RANJITH BN

Location: SON OF NAGARAJU. G,

HIGH

COURT OF AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

KARNATAKA

RESIDING AT NO. 59,

17^TH CROSS, TG LAYOUT,

ITTAMADU,

BANASHANKARI III STAGE,

BENGALURU-560 085.

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 1, 1ST FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, DWARAKANAGAR, 100 FEET ROAD, (NEAR PESIT), HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU-560 085.

REP BY ITS DIVISION MANAGER.

3. M. T. NAGARAJ AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, VISWANATH AND NAGARAJ ASSOCIATES, NO.303, SAPTHAGIRI RESIDENCY-4, 7TH CROSS, KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 085.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVAREDDY R., ADVOCATE FOR R3;

VIDE ORDER DATED 14.08.2024;

SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH )

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2024 PASSED ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER III RULE 4(2) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC IN MVC NO.2127/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.JUDGE AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-F) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, an injured in a road accident, is granted compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and some part of the compensation is in deposit with the II Additional Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner has filed an application with the Tribunal for permission to appoint another counsel on her behalf so that she could apply for withdrawal of the amount in deposit. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 13.02.2024, has rejected the application reasoning thus:

"On perusal of entire materials on record, it is found that another counsel on record by name M T Nagaraj has not given no objection vakalath to the petitioner and he submits that it is unfair practice on the other counsel filing vakalath without no objection. Petitioner even though issued notice to the counsel on record, the vakalath given by her was not cancelled. Hence the fresh vakalath filed by the other counsel cannot be accepted when the counsel on record has objected and the vakalath even earlier is not cancelled."

2. Sri Abhinay Y T, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the judgment of a division Bench of this Court in MFA No.6526/2013 to assert that a party to judicial proceedings cannot be denied his/her right to appoint a new advocate of his/her choice and the Courts/tribunals cannot ask for no objection of the Advocate already on record to accept the vakalathnama filed by another Advocate.

3. This Court's observation in the afore Judgment, which is in line with the argument canvassed by Sri Abhinay Y T, reads as under:

"6. As could be seen from the observations made in the two decisions extracted above, 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. A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate.

7. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization. On discha