Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: O. B. E.No.18 1 in CS No.541/2021
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MAZGAON, BOMBAY
ORDER IN ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO.18
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 541 OF 2021
M/s. Leo Constructions … Plaintiff.
V/s.
Mr. Bhikaji Raghu Sawant … Defendant.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.14)
DATE : 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.
: Appearances:
Adv. Amar Shribad for Defendant.
ORAL ORDER
The Ld. Advocate for defendant has filed present application for
giving directions to the defendant to pay his agreed fees and till then
the defendant is not allowed to proceed in the matter.
2. In short, it is the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the defendant
that, the defendant has appointed him as his advocate upon the
condition of making payment of certain fees. Thereafter, the Ld.
Advocate has appeared and filed written statement for defendant. He
-- 1 of 4 --
O. B. E.No.18 2 in CS No.541/2021
also taken out notice of motion under order 7 rule 11 of CPC bearing
no. 2399 of 2022. However, surprisingly, the defendant has changed
him and appointed new advocate without taking 'no objection' and
making payment of remaining fees. Thus, in such circumstances the
defendant is directed to pay his fees.
3. In spite of service of the application, the defendant failed to file
reply. Hence, it proceeded without reply of the defendant.
4. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the defendant. Perused the record.
5. It is main grievance of the Ld. Advocate for defendant that,
without his knowledge and obtaining his no objection, the defendant
has engaged new advocate. Even the defendant has not paid agreed fees
to him for his services rendered to the defendant. Hence, he prayed that
the defendant be directed to pay remaining fees and till then defendant
be restrained from proceeding in the matter.
6. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the Case of Karnataka
Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. V/s. M. Rajeshekahr and Ors.
Decided on 02.12.2016 in Misc. First Appeal No.6526/2013 observed
that “There is nothing known as irrevocable Vakalatnama. The right of
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
discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have case file returned
to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the
file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act,1961. In
any proceedings, including civil and criminal a party has an absolute right
to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied
-- 2 of 4 --
O. B. E.No.18 3 in CS No.541/2021
of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows
that any rule of law imposing restriction on the said right can't be
construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other
authorities shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on
record, to accept the Vakalatnama filed by a new advocate. As stated
above, under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to
appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not
conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the
Vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for 'no
objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the Vakalatnama
filed by new Advocate”.
7. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Karnataka High
Court, I do not find substance in the contention of the ld. Advocate for
defendant. However, he is at liberty to initiate independent proceeding
for recovery of his fees, as per law. Thus, in view of my above
discussions, I Pass the following order;
ORDER
1. Exhibit No. 18 in Commercial Suit No.541 of 2021 stands
rejected.
2. Application stands disposed of.
Sd/
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date:.26.02.2024 Mazgaon, Gr. Mumbai
(C.R. No.14)
Dictated on : 26.02.2024
Transcribed on : 26.02.2024
Signed on : 26.02.2024
-- 3 of 4 --
O. B. E.No.18 4 in CS No.541/2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 27.02.2024 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
TIME: 05.50 p.m. Mr. Ashok Sudhakar Patil
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
HHJ Shri Virendra D.Kedar
(Court Room No.14)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
26.02.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
26.02.2024
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 27.02.2024
-- 4 of 4 --