S.V. Duraiswamy vs Dayalan and 8 others

S.S. Subramani, J.—Plaintiff in O.S. 92 of 1991 on the file of District Munsif, Tambaram is the Revision Petitioner herein. Petitioner moved

an application in I.A.S.R. No. 2759 of 1999 seeking direction to revoke the Vakalat of Sri. Senthilnathan who is appearing for respondents in this

Court also on the ground that petitioner consulted earlier with the very same counsel in regard to very same litigation and there had been

professional communication as between them. It is also said that Sri. Senthilnathan has given legal opinion in his favour and if he is allowed to

appear for respondents, the communication which he had with Sri. Senthilnathan is likely to be made use of by him during trial. It is also submitted

that when one of the parties has taken advice from the counsel, it is not proper on the part of counsel to appear for the opposite party in the same

litigation.

Lower Court held that u/s 35 of the Advocates Act, Sri Senthilnathan cannot be prevented from appearing for defendants in the suit and

therefore rejected the application.

It is against the said order of lower Court petitioner has come to this Court with this revision petition.

Caveat was filed by Sri. Senthilnathan himself on behalf of the respondents.

I heard the revision petition at the admission stage itself with the consent of parties.

It is admitted by Sri. Senthilnathan himself that he has given advice and opinion in regard to the very same property to plaintiff. The order of the

lower Court also, it is clear that Sri. Senthilnathan has something to do with the plaintiff in respect of the very saint litigation. But, lower Court

rejected the application to revoke Vakalat on the ground that Sri. Senthilnathan was not engaged by plaintiff in the suit, appeal or proceedings. Sri

Senthilnathan himself admitted before me that plaintiff has also taken opinion from him and there had been communications between plaintiff and

himself earlier.

It is in this background I have to consider whether Sri. Senthilnathan can be permitted to appear for defendants in this case.

The relationship between advocate and client is based only on confidence and trust. Legal profession is considered to be a noble profession and

if an advocate is allowed to give advice to one party and appear for the opposite party in Court, the confidence reposed on him will be lost and his

conduct will amount to prostitution of profession. Counsel appearing for one party is not expected to please both his party and opposite party and

if he does so, it will amount to professional misconduct and breach of trust.

I do not want to further discuss the matter since Sri. Senthilnathan himself submitted before me that he will not appear in this case hereafter and

that he is withdrawing from the case. He also agreed to revoke the Vakalat. The said submission is recorded.

In case the Vakalal is not revoked immediately, petitioner may produce copy of this order before lower Court and lower Court is bound to see

that the Vakalat is revoked and Sri. Senthilnathan is not allowed to appear for defendants in the suit. The revision petition is ordered accordingly.

No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 17816 of 1999 is closed.