( 1 ) THE petitioner holds an account with the respondent. He is also operating a locker provided by the respondent. Alleging that his locker was unauthorisedly opened and the valuables deposited therein were taken away, the petitioner filed O. S. No. 102 of 2002 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Gudivada for return of the articles said to be missing from the locker, or in the alternative for a decree of Rs. 1,10,500/- representing the costs there of. ( 2 ) THE respondent entered appearance and engaged an Advocate by name Sri m. N. P. Reddy. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed a memo in the suit with a contention that in the panchanama said to have been prepared recording the status of the locker, Sri M. N. P. Reddy figured as a witness and in that view of the matter, he cannot appear as an advocate in the matter. The memo was resisted by the respondent. Ultimately, through its order dated 9-12-2004, the trial Court rejected the memo. Hence this revision. ( 4 ) SRI L. Ravichander, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is no provision in the advocates Act or the Rules framed by the bar Council disabling the Counsel for the respondent from appearing in the matter, proprietary demands that he dissociates himself with the matter. He contends that if the petitioner examines the said Advocate as a witness, in such an event it would result in an embarrassing situation. ( 5 ) SRI M. Narender Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that when the locker of the petitioner was found open, the respondent took the assistance of their panel advocate as regards the steps to be taken in relation to it, and on that account, it cannot be said that the learned counsel had incurred any disqualification to appear on behalf of the respondent. ( 6 ) THE petitioner takes objection to the appearance of Sri M. N. P. Reddy. as an Advocate on behalf of the respondent. The only reason put forward in this context is that the said Advocate figured as a witness in the panchanama drafted, while noting the status of the locker. Even if it is true, that fact by itself does not bring about any disqualification for the learned Counsel. as an Advocate on behalf of the respondent. The only reason put forward in this context is that the said Advocate figured as a witness in the panchanama drafted, while noting the status of the locker. Even if it is true, that fact by itself does not bring about any disqualification for the learned Counsel. Instances are not lacking where the assistance of the Counsel is taken by the parties, such as during the course of execution of warrants by commissioners appointed by the Court. It is only when it becomes embarrassing for the counsel, such as when he figures as a witness in that very matter, that the necessity would arise for him to give up Vakalat. ( 7 ) A Full Bench of the Madras High court in In re C. S. Venkatachariar, took the view that a Counsel appearing for a party must not give evidence as a witness and if such an eventuality arises, he has to retire from the case. ( 8 ) FOLLOWING the same, the C. R. P. is disposed of directing that the respondent shall be entitled to engage its Counsel Sri m. N. P. Reddy as long as he is not required by the Court to figure as a witness. In case, he figures as a witness be it at the instance of the petitioner, or the respondent, he shall retire from the case and it shall be open to the respondent to engage another counsel.