AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—There is no justification whatever for entertaining this matter u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This revision is filed by
a lawyer who appeared for the party in the court below and whose vakalat is now revoked. The client has been permitted to engage another
counsel to conduct his case. The court below has taken care to observe that the rights of the present petitioner can be worked out in appropriate
proceedings. As such, the order is one which cannot be interfered with, u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there is no error of jurisdiction
whatever on the part of the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the observations made by the Bench in Sundaramurthy
v. Muthiah Mudaliar (A.I.R.1945 Madras 190 = 58 L.W.34). That was an application by the respondent in an appeal, praying for the cancellation
of the vakalat given to the advocates representing him in that appeal. While disposing of that application, the Bench said as follows:
The contention of the petitioner is that the amount which he has paid is sufficient remuneration for the work already done, that he has no means to
pay the balance and that he has been offered financial help on condition of his engaging a different advocate we do no know whom. It seems to us
clear from the rules and from the decisions that in the absence of misconduct on the part of the advocate, the client is not entitled to the sanction of
the Court for a change of the advocate without making a satisfactory arrangement to pay the advocate, who has had charge of the case hitherto.
The cases quoted before us on the point are:
Ramaswami Chetti v. Subbu chetti (23 Mad. 134), Pankai Kumar Vs Sudheer Kumar (21 AIR 1934 Cal. 58) and Rahika Debi v. Ramasray
Prasad (17 AIR 1930 Pat. 403). In the present case, there is no shadow of an allegation against the Advocate who has had charge of the case
hitherto. The client proposes to abandon him when the case is ready for hearing. Although he pleads poverty, he is apparently able to get sufficient
means to instruct another advocate and to purchase the necessary papers. In these circumstances it seems to us proper that the advocates on the
record should be paid their full fee before the change of vakalat is sanctioned and we decline to sanction the change until satisfactory arrangements
have been made to that end.
(Underlining mine)
The ruling will not have any bearing in this case, as evident from the underlined portion and as the question raised before me is u/s 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. This is not on an application before this Court.
Learned counsel drew my attention to the following observations made by me in Shakir Ali & another v. The Tamil Nadu Electicity Board rep.
by its Chairman, Madras-2 & another (1993 -1-L.W.71).
The profession of a lawyer has always been viewed as a profession for public service and not a business or a trade. As a matter of professional
ethics it was always considered better to yield something to the client''s grievance as to the amount of the fee than to engage in a suit to justify,
which ought to be always avoided, except as a resort to prevent imposition of fraud. It had been the consistent view that a lawyer should not
stipulate for a larger fee on the contingency of a success in litigation and the Courts have always disapproved at such agreements, because the
agreement between a lawyer and his client was considered to be directly concerned with the administration of justice, as a lawyer is an officer of
court.
I do not find any relevance to the said observations in the present case.
I do not find any justification to contestant this revision petition. The rights of the petitioner are kept in tact as the lower court itself has observed
that the petitioner can work out for appropriate remedies. There is no warrant to decide the dispute between the petitioner and his client and suit
between the plaintiff and defendants in this suit. When the trial Court has in its discretion decided not to entertain the controversy, there is an
justification for this Court to interfere u/s 115, C.P.C. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed.