JUDGMENT Applicants have directed this revision against the order dtd. 7.8.2001 passed by MACT Jhabua in Claim Case No. 180/2001 thereby refusing permission to the applicants to engage some other advocate of their choice to appear before the said Court in claim case filed on behalf of the applicants. The facts in brief of the case are : Initially Shri Anil Sanghvi, advocate was appearing on behalf of the applicants in claim case No. 180/2001, but at the subsequent stage of the said case, applicants wanted to engage one Shri B.L. Soni, to appear on their behalf in the aforesaid claim case. The consent' of the earlier advocate Shri Anil Sanghvi was asked; to which Shri Anil Sanghvi refused to grant consent for engaging some other advocate. An application was filed before the Tribunal for grant of permission to engage some other counsel on behalf of the petitioner to appear in the pending claim case. Learned Tribunal relying on the decision of this .Court in case of Surendrakumar Pande v. State of M.P. ( 1995(1) MPWN 51 ), dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and refused to grant permission to the petitioner to engage such other advocate in the claim case filed on their behalf. The only contention of the learned counsel is that in view of the provisions of Rule 39 of Rules framed by Bar Council of India, an advocate shall not make appearance in any case in which there is already some other advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama and appearing on behalf one of the parties. It is further stated that if the party wants to engage some other advocate, then the advocate concerned, should obtain consent of the earlier advocate who was appearing for the said party. In the rules it is further stated that in case such consent is not produced before the Court, then the Court shall consider the reasons stated in the application for not obtaining consent of the earlier advocate, and grant permission to .the party to engage some other advocate. In view of the provisions of Rule 39 of the Bar Council of India, framed under the Advocates Act and known as Standards of Professional. In view of the provisions of Rule 39 of the Bar Council of India, framed under the Advocates Act and known as Standards of Professional. Conduct and Etiquette Rules, when the earlier advocate is not willing to give his consent the Court in appropriate case is competent to grant permission to the parties to engage some other advocate. In this case, the petitioners in their application specifically stated that they do not want to engage Shri Anil Sanghvi in their claim case on their behalf, but they want to engage Shri B.L. Soni, advocate on their behalf, as such, the Tribunal should have granted permission to the petitioners to engage advocate of their choice in the pending claim case. The impugned order of the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of Rule 39 of the Rules framed by Bar Council of India and deserves to be quashed. Consequently this revision is allowed and the permission is granted to the applicants to engage Shri B.L. Soni on their behalf in the Claims Case No. 180/2001 pending in the Court of MACT Jhabua.