Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 523 (KAR)

Madhav v. Ganapathi

2002-08-22

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2002
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.--This revision petition is filed by the third Defendant aggrieved of the order passed on IA-VIII in O.S. No. 52 of 1994 dated 5.7.2000 filed under Order 3, Rule 4(2) read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying to terminate the Vakalath executed in favour of his Advocate. 2. The said application was filed to terminate the vakalath executed in favour of his Advocate in view of difference of opinion between him and the remaining trustees. The said application was opposed by the learned Counsel contending that all the trustees unanimously and jointly signed vakalathnama by passing resolution. Therefore, he cannot individually withdraw his given power to him to appear on his behalf and other trustees. 3. The learned trial Judge after considering the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties has upheld the objections raised by the learned Counsel recording its findings at paras 15 and 16 of the impugned order after referring to Order 3, Rule 4 Sub-clause (2) of Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court is of the view that power of revocation of vakalath of his Advocate can be exercised by the clients when they engage Advocate individually and not as trustees on behalf of the trust, as it is done in the instant case. However, the third Defendant has got his individual right to defend as a trustee in the interest of trust. Merely because the trust has passed the resolution to engage the services of lawyer, it does not debar him to engage his lawyer to defend his interest and the interest of the trust. This important aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the trial Court. It has misunderstood the authority of the trustee members and the resolution passed by the trust to engage the lawyer to defend their interest in the proceedings before the trial Court. In my considered view, the findings and reasons recorded in rejecting the application are erroneous and suffer from error in law. It is for the client to engage the services of a particular Advocate, that right cannot be taken away by anybody. Merely because the resolution is passed, it will not come in the way for the third Defendant-Petitioner to change his Advocate by terminating the power given to the earlier Advocate. It is for the client to engage the services of a particular Advocate, that right cannot be taken away by anybody. Merely because the resolution is passed, it will not come in the way for the third Defendant-Petitioner to change his Advocate by terminating the power given to the earlier Advocate. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is required to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 4. Civil Revision Petition is allowed. IA-8 is also allowed. The third Defendant-Petitioner is at liberty to engage any Advocate to defend his interest and the interest of the trust in the suit.