JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - The Petitioner (decree-holder No. 1) and the late father opp. parties 2 and 3 (decree-holders 2 and 3) were brothers. They filed S. C. C. Suit 33 of 64 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Baripada, against opp. party No. 1 for arrears of house rent, and obtained a decree for Rs. 574.21 ps. on 14.9-1964. All the decree-holders filed Execution Case No. 60 of 64 for recovery of the decretal amount. In the suit and in the execution case the Petitioner acted as the next friend of opp. party.3, who was then a minor. On 7-1-1965 the judgment-debtor (opp. party. 1) paid a sum of Rs. 50/- in Court which was received on behalf of all the decree-holders by Sri S.C. Das Patnaik, advocate for the decree-holders. On 15-1.1965 the judgment-debtor filed a receipt for Rs. 538.56ps. signed by opp party no, 2 for self and as guardian of opp. party No. 3, and applied for recording full satisfaction of the decree. Sri S.N. Panda, advocate, appeared for opp. parties 2 and 3 on that day without taking the consent of Sarbashri S.C. Das Patnaik and J.K. Das, the original advocates for the decree-holders. The case of the Petitioner is that when Sri J.K. Das was in the midst of a criminal case, two pleaders' lerks, Baishnab Charan Das and Ramachandra Das, delivered to Sri J.K. Das three papers and took his signatures thereon. When Sri J.K. Das was free from the criminal Court, he read the papers and hurried to the Court of the Sub-Judge to take time for filing counter. It was then 3 P.M. and the Subordinate Judge had just passed orders recording full satisfaction. Next day on 16-1-1965, the Petitioner filed an application to recall the Order passed on the previous day. On issue of notice, the judgment-debtor alone appeared and filed a court. On 10-2-1965 the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for recalling the order of fun satisfaction. Against this Order the civil revision has been filed. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge's Order has been subjected to severe criticism from various aspects by Mr. Panda. Apart from other objections which would be point d out now, the order is contrary to law and it; not sustainable on the very face of it. 3. Against this Order the civil revision has been filed. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge's Order has been subjected to severe criticism from various aspects by Mr. Panda. Apart from other objections which would be point d out now, the order is contrary to law and it; not sustainable on the very face of it. 3. Law is well settled that one of several decree-holders cannot give a valid discharge of the entire decree without the concurrence of other decree-holders. A payment of the entire decretal dues out of Court to one of the several decree-holders is valid only to the extent of the share of that decree-holder unless it is proved that the decree-holder, who granted the discharge, had the legal authority to bind the other decree-holders by his acts. It is not necessary to cite copious authorities. Sadho Saran Pande Vs. Mt. Subhadra and Others, and Kumaid Kumar Singh Vs. Amar Nath Singh and Others have been have been consistently followed in this Court. The learned Subordinate Judge's judgment is bereft of any discussion on the question of law. On the aforesaid principle, payment by the judgment debtor of Rs. 538.56 ps. to decree holder No. 2 out of Court is not binding on the Petitioner. It is open to the Petitioner to continue the execution and recover his share of the decretal dues. 4. Opp. party. 3 Krushna Kumari was a minor. In the suit and in the execution she was represented through the Petitioner as next friend. At the time when the receipt of satisfaction was filed, opp. party-2 appeared as the guardian of opp. party-3. There was no application before the Court for discharging the Petitioner and for appointing opp. party-2 as the new next friend. Order XXXII, Rule 8, CPC was infringed. This rule runs thus: Rule 8, Sub-rule (I)-Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a next friend shall not retire without first procuring a fit person to be put in his place and giving security for the cost already incurred. Sub-rule (2)-The application for the appointment of a new next friend shall be supported by an affidavit showing the fitness of the person proposed, and also that he has no interest adverse to that of the minor... Sub-rule (2)-The application for the appointment of a new next friend shall be supported by an affidavit showing the fitness of the person proposed, and also that he has no interest adverse to that of the minor... The learned Subordinate Judge did not keep the aforesaid mandatory provisions of law in view and should not have recorded satisfaction of the decree in respect of opp. party. 3 on the basis of payment to opp. party. 2 who was not appointed as the next friend after discharge of the Petitioner. 5. There is also infringement of Order XXXII, Rule 6(1)(b) which says that a next friend or guardian for the suit shall not, without the leave of the Court, receive any money or other movable property on behalf of a minor under a decree or Order in favour of the minor. Thus opp. party. 2 could not have received any money under the decree in favour of opp. party. 3 without the leave of the Court. 6. When the application was filed by the judgment-debtor for recording full satisfaction of the decree on the basis of payment made to opp. party. 2, the learned Subordinate Judge should have allowed time to the Petitioner and opp. party. 3 for filing counter and should have fixed a date for hearing. Without doing so, he should not have hurriedly disposed of the case. 7. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the payment by the judgment-debtor to opp. party-2 out, of Court would not affect the rights of the Petitioner and opp. party. 3 to execute the decree in respect their interests. 8. It is now necessary to examine the effect of the appearance of advocates Sarbasri S.N. Panda and S.K Mohapatra on behalf of decree-holders 2 and 3 They filed vakalatnama on 15-1-1965, by then Sarbasri S.C. Das Patnaik and J.K. Das, advocate, were on record appearing for all the three decree-holders. Written consent of anyone of them was not produced by Sri S.N. Panda or Sri S.K. Mohapatra. Notice was given only to Sri J.K. Das on 15.1.1965, that decree-holders 2 and 3 would engage Sri S.N. Panda. A copy of the petition served on Sri J.K. Das reads as. Please accord your sanction for the engagement of Sri S.N. Panda, advocate, Baripada. A copy of this paper was not served on Sri S.C. Das Patnaik. Notice was given only to Sri J.K. Das on 15.1.1965, that decree-holders 2 and 3 would engage Sri S.N. Panda. A copy of the petition served on Sri J.K. Das reads as. Please accord your sanction for the engagement of Sri S.N. Panda, advocate, Baripada. A copy of this paper was not served on Sri S.C. Das Patnaik. No consent was sought for the engagement of Sri S.K. Mohapatra. Sri S.K. Mohapatra accepted the power but did not sign, present any application or plead for his clients. 9. Rule 5(g) of Chapter IV. Part VII, at page 206 of the G.R. and C.O., Civil. Vol. I, 1966 Ed runs thus: An Advocate or a Pleader proposing to file a vakalatnama or an appearance in a suit, appeal or other proceedings, in which there is already an Advocate or a Pleader on record, shall not do so, unless such Advocate or Pleader is dead or has retired from the case or unless a written consent of such Advocate or Pleader produced which consent will not be refused when his dues according to the written terms of his engagement signed by the client or his duly authorized agent, or in the absence of such terms in writing as aforesaid, the minimum fees according to the scale presented at pages 166 to 169 ante have been paid to him subjects, however, to the discretion of the Court to pass orders to the contrary in either of the cases or when the consent of such Advocate or Pleader is refused, unless he obtains the permission of the Court . This rule is mandatory and has been incorporated to prevent sharp practices being resorted to by advocates. Doubtless the rule does not say down in express terms whether the vakalatnama in such cases would be ignored. But reading the rule as a whole, it appears fairly clear that such vakalatnama would be ignored by the Court and no action would be taken thereon unless the requisite consent had been obtained or the Court bad given permission. In this case, the learned Subordinate fudge did not apply his mind at all to this provision and recorded no orders permitting Sri S.N. Panda and Sri S.K. Mohapatra to appear on behalf of Defendants 2 and 3 despite their representation through Sarbasri S.C. Das Patnaik and J.K. Das. In this case, the learned Subordinate fudge did not apply his mind at all to this provision and recorded no orders permitting Sri S.N. Panda and Sri S.K. Mohapatra to appear on behalf of Defendants 2 and 3 despite their representation through Sarbasri S.C. Das Patnaik and J.K. Das. In the circumstances, the appearance of Sarbasri S.N. Panda and S.K. Mohapatra should have been ignored. 10. On the aforesaid discussion, the execution case is restored to file. The learned Subordinate Judge should consider whether the vakalatnama of Sarbasri S.N. Panda and S.K. Mohapatra be ignored or accepted. In any case, the execution case would proceed 80 far as decree-holders 1 and 3 are concerned. 11. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and the Civil Revision is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Re. 50/-.