Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This order of mine shalI dispose of aforesaid three Civil Revision petitions Nos. 6223 to 6225 of 2009 assailing the orders dated 01.09,2009 and amended order dated 09.09.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, vide which, the petitioner (Advocate)s authority of representation on behalf of the respondent-Company has been withdrawn, 2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Ludhiana and was representing to contest the cases being filed against the respondent in the Courts at Ludhiana. The record reveals that previously T.R. Raseen, Advocate-petitioner was representing respondent No. 2-National Insurance Company Limited SCO No. 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh in the aforesaid cases. Later on, on withdrawal of his power of attorney by Sh. L.P.S. Hira, Divisional Manager of the Company on 26.08.2009 by making categorical statement that now they will produce another counsel Sh. Rajiv Abhi Advocate to defend the cases, Rajiv Abhi was asked to appear in these cases. 3. Petitioner has urged that no representation of the counsel could be made without his concurrence. In this regard, he has cited Rule 11 of the Rules made by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana under Section 34( 1) of the Advocates Act 1961 wherein it is envisaged that an advocate shall not enter appearance in any case in which there is already a vakalatnama or memo of appearance filed by an advocate for a party except without his consent. In case, such consent is not produced, he shall apply, stating reasons why the said consent could not be produced and shall appear only after obtaining the permission of the Court. The Bar Council Rules reveal that in case the counsel does not produce the consent of the previous lawyer then he could apply to the Court stating the reasons why the said consent could not be produced and he could appear only after obtaining the permission of the Court. But neither the application was filed by the counsel nor such permission of the Court was sought to appear. 4. Heard, Rule 11 incorporated under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Rule 11 does not debar the other Advocate to have control of the brief without consent. But neither the application was filed by the counsel nor such permission of the Court was sought to appear. 4. Heard, Rule 11 incorporated under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Rule 11 does not debar the other Advocate to have control of the brief without consent. Rule 11 is reproduced as under :- "Rule 11 No advocate shall be permitted to file an appointment or memorandum of appearance in any proceeding in which another advocate is already on record for the same party save with the consent of the former advocate on record or the leave of the Court, unless the former advocate has ceased to practice or has by reason of infirmity of mind or body or otherwise become unable to continue to act." 5. The Rule 11 does not create an absolute bar for change of the counsel. The creation of agency by the principal in his agent/attorney is a matter of faith, trust and confidence. Attorney is supposed to act for the benefit and advantage of his Principal. Such attorneys continue to survive till the faith trust and confidence continues and it terminates as soon as the faith is lost. The words "or otherwise become unable to continue to act" should not be construed to mean only in favour of the counsel but these could be used to provide a handle to the party engaging if the counsel loses his distrust, misuses his power or acts in detriment to the rights of the principal. The intent and purport to introduce the rule was to withdraw the power without any reason and only to avoid the payment of fee when the case was being compromised or otherwise reached its culmination or when the litigant was in misunderstanding that other counsel could do better. In such situation, withdrawal of power without consent should be snubbed and checked. 6. It is not a case where consent of the petitioner was required as it is not the dispute between Sh. Rajiv Abhi, Advocate and the petitioner but it is the dispute between the principal and the Agent/Attorney. Here the attorriey was withdrawn by Sh. In such situation, withdrawal of power without consent should be snubbed and checked. 6. It is not a case where consent of the petitioner was required as it is not the dispute between Sh. Rajiv Abhi, Advocate and the petitioner but it is the dispute between the principal and the Agent/Attorney. Here the attorriey was withdrawn by Sh. L.P.S. Hira, SeniorDivisional Manager of Insurance Company as a policy matter because the petitioner had lost trust and confidence of the company and the latter was apprehending that its cases were not being properly conducted by the petitioner, therefore, the Company decided to change the counsel. The plea of the petitioner that the Senior Divisional Manager was not competent to withdraw his attorney is also not tenable because the petitioner had no right to challenge the authority of his principal. Even otherwise, L.P.S. Hira, acted being the head of the office of National Insurance Company at Ludhiana has not acted beyond his power and he did not find any necessity to seek any instructions from the Regional anager. The matter with regard to competency is the internal matter of the officers of the company but this right is not available to the petitioner. It was also observed in case C. V. Sudhindra and others v. M/s Diwine High School for Blind, Bangalore and others, AIR 2009 Karnataka 5 that contract of vakalatnama can be withdrawn by client at any time and if the client has lost his confidence and faith in the advocate, he can terminate the vakalatnama and seek return of the file. 7. As regards the other grievance regarding payment of remaining fee on account of breach eontract could be made the subject matter of adjudication by way of separate remedy as provided under law. However, advocate on termination of attorney had no lien over the litigation files for his unpaid fee. The Apex Court in case R.D. Saxena v. Balaramprasad Sharma, 2000(4) RCR(Civil) 439 : AIR 2000 SC 29(2) (2912 ?) had also observed that the refusal to return the file to the client amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. It is not only the legal duty but also moral imperative on the advocate to return the brief to his client so as to enable him to make alternative arrangement to conduct the case. It is not only the legal duty but also moral imperative on the advocate to return the brief to his client so as to enable him to make alternative arrangement to conduct the case. If the advocate has any genuine claim or grievance against his client the appropriate course is to return his brief with endorsement of no objection and fight for his rights as per law. The advocate cannot be allowed to agitate his dispute interse with his client in the Court and virtually stall the proceedings in the case. If the previous counsel otherwise continues to act then consent was not required. In this case also the counsel has become unable to continue to act for his conduct. Mr. I.P.S. Hira Divisional Manager of Insurance Company has categorically stated that counsel had become unable to continue to act as the petitioner was not properly conducting the cases. 8. With these observations and without further delving deep into the issues, I do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.