JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---Two applications dated 12th February, 1999 were filed by respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira, which are at pages 295 and 349 of the record. Insofar as the application in page 349 is concerned, it appears that statement was made therein, in paragraph 5, which respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira withdrew by filing a statement in writing and had tendered unconditional apology for having made the said statement. In view of the same, nothing would actually survive insofar as the said application at page 349 is concerned. 2.Coming to the second application, which is at page 295 of the record, the respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira had raised objection to the appearance of Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar and Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar and associates on behalf of the appellants. The grounds for raising the said objection may be briefly stated. The objection to the appearance of Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar was on the ground that he was holding power of Attorney for Mrs. Ricardina Noronha, appellant, as could be seen from petition dated 25th October, 1995 filed on behalf of the said appellant before the Custodian of Evacuee Property in respect of the suit properties. Copies of the Power of Attorney dated 3rd September, 1992 and the application dated 25th October, 1995 alongwith the order dated 16th September 1997 passed thereon have been annexed with the application. It was further stated in the said application that M/s. Dempo Mining Corporation Ltd., had encroached upon the suit properties at Mayem, Bicholim, partially and the proceedings in this regard are pending adjudication and the said advocates also represented the said firm. Insofar as the objection relating to Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar, father of Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar is concerned, it was alleged by the respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereir that Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar was holding Power of Attorney executed on 14th June, 1963 for late Smt. Maria Elsa F. Noronha Wolfango da Silva, who is the respondent. It was further stated that the Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar is conversant and acquainted with the pros and cons of the legal aspects of the dispute and controversy and, therefore, it would be unfair on his part and his associates in his office to appear against the respondent in this matter. It was further stated that the Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar is conversant and acquainted with the pros and cons of the legal aspects of the dispute and controversy and, therefore, it would be unfair on his part and his associates in his office to appear against the respondent in this matter. According to the respondent, this would attract the provisions of misconduct and this is against all canons of professional ethics. In this connection reliance was placed by the respondent on the judgment of this Court in (Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc.)1, 1994(4) Bom.C.R. 538 and particularly to paragraphs 15(a), (b) and (c) of the said judgement. 3.In reply filed by Advocate for appellants, which is at page 375 of the record, it has been submitted that the objection is not well founded, nowhere it is indicated that the advocates had appeared on behalf of the respondent, that no such objections were raised earlier when the matter was heard and decided on 15th January, 1999 and that the ruling in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (supra) is not attracted to the matter under consideration. 4.The respondent has filed written arguments, which are at pages 379 to 385 of the record and the arguments are basically reproduction of the contents of the application, to which I have already made a reference. 5.Learned Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar took me through the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (supra) and pointed out that the question for consideration therein was whether an advocate is entitled to act as constituted attorney of a party with authorization to sign the pleadings and affidavits on behalf of the suitor as well as to act and plead for the party concerned in the same litigation. The second question was whether the existing practice followed by firm of advocates/solicitors/attorneys particularly in case of non-resident clients as aforesaid is in conformity with law and the recognised rules of professional ethics. The second question was whether the existing practice followed by firm of advocates/solicitors/attorneys particularly in case of non-resident clients as aforesaid is in conformity with law and the recognised rules of professional ethics. It was pointed out in the said judgment that the question to be asked is as to whether an advocate, who acts as constituted attorney of a suitor in pursuance of power of attorney from his client is entitled to combine his role of a constituted attorney with that of an Advocate in the same cause simultaneously or in other words whether the two roles could be combined. The questions posed were answered as under and certain directions were given in the matter : (a) An Advocate is not entitled to act in a professional capacity as well as constituted attorney of a party in the same matter or cause. An Advocate cannot combine the two roles. If a firm of Advocates is appointed as Advocates by a suitor, none of partners of the Advocates firm can act as recognised agent in pursuance of a power of attorney concerning the same cause. (b) The existing practice followed by the firm or advocates/solicitors/attorneys particularly in case of non-resident clients combining the two roles is opposed to law and is required to be discontinued forthwith. (c) The Protohonotary and Senior Master, High Court shall not accept any Vakalatnama in favour of a firm of advocates where one or the other partner of the same firm also holds a power of attorney from the plaintiff or the defendant or any other suitor before the Court in the same cause. Learned Senior Counsel urged that the power of attorney which was given by Fernando Bernardo de Noronha Wolfango da Silva and his wife Mrs. Maria Elsa Filomena Coutinho de Noronha Wofango da Silva in favour of a number of Advocates including him was general in nature and that in pursuance of the power of attorney he had not appeared in any matter on their behalf. He also pointed out that even in the application filed by the respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira there is no mention anywhere as to whether Senior Advocate had appeared in any matter on the strength of the said power of attorney. He also pointed out that even in the application filed by the respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira there is no mention anywhere as to whether Senior Advocate had appeared in any matter on the strength of the said power of attorney. Accordingly, it is urged that mere issue of power of attorney without any appearance in pursuance of the said power of attorney does not prohibit appearance in any other case against the person giving power of attorney. 6.There is considerable merit in the contention of Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar. In the light of the facts referred to above and the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira, there is no substance in the objection raised by the respondent Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira insofar as the appearance of Senior Advocate Shri M.S. Usgaonkar in the matter is concerned on behalf of the appellants. The said ruling is not applicable to the facts referred to above. 7.Coming to the objection raised on the appearance of Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel has argued that, though Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar had appeared on the strength of power of attorney given by Ricardina de Silva Noronha in the proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee properties, yet insofar as the appearance in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, Ricardina de Silva Noronha had given power of attorney to one Jose Cristovam Pinto, who had in turn given Vakalatnama in favour of Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar. It was pointed out that the proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee properties relate to the question whether the property in question is non-evacuee property and in the suit the question is relating to the Will, which is challenged. According to the Senior Counsel, though the proceedings in the Civil Court and the Custodian pertain to the same property, yet they do not relate to the same cause as is pointed out in the judgment of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (supra). According to the Senior Counsel, though the proceedings in the Civil Court and the Custodian pertain to the same property, yet they do not relate to the same cause as is pointed out in the judgment of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (supra). 8.Admittedly, the proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee properties as well as the Civil Court relate to the same property in respect of which power of attorney was given by Ricardina de Silva Noronha in favour of Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar and on the strength of the said power of attorney Advocate Shri Usgaonkar had appeared in the proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee properties. The proceedings before the Civil Court are also relating to the same property, though the issue there may be different. Eventhough the objection relating to appearance of Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar may not be strictly covered within the ambit of the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (supra), yet it would be proper and appropriate that Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar should withdraw from those proceedings. 9.Applications in question are disposed of in aforesaid terms. The appeal may now be listed for hearing as per its turn. Order accordingly. -----