ORDER : V SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Sriranga, learned Senior Advocate for Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, learned counsel the petitioners. 2. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. Being aggrieved by the Order passed on I.A No.9 filed by the fifth defendant with a prayer to delete the fifth defendant from the suit under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs are before this Court. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Revision petition are as under: A suit came to be filed by the revision petitioners against five defendants with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the Defendants as follows: (a) declare the action of the Defendants issuing notices dated 07.07.2014 as defamatory. (b) Grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their workmen, servants, agents, henchmen and/or any person/s claiming through or under them, etc., from restraining them from issuing furthermore legal notices to the subsequent purchaser; (c) direct the Defendants 1 to 5, jointly and/or severally, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) to the Plaintiffs as damages; (d) To pass such further orders or grant such further relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances and on the facts of the this matter and: (e) To grant costs of these proceedings.” 4. At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint, it has been contended as under: “11. It is submitted that Defendant No.5 has acted on behalf of Defendants No. 2 to 4 in all the above mentioned proceedings and is personally aware of all the above mentioned developments. It is submitted that when things stood thus, the Defendants No.2 to 4 claiming to be acting on behalf of Defendant No.1 after having failed to obtain interim order from courts as mentioned supra, Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have indulged in extra legal methods to arm twist the plaintiffs by illegal acts and have got issued Legal Notices through Defendant No. 5, to the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property suppressing the vital material facts relating to various court proceedings. The Legal notices dated 07.07.2014, calling upon the subsequent purchasers to get their sale deeds cancelled which were registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar as there is a status quo order in A.A. 20/2012. The Legal notices dated 07.07.2014, calling upon the subsequent purchasers to get their sale deeds cancelled which were registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar as there is a status quo order in A.A. 20/2012. It is pertinent to note that the Defendant No. 1 to 4, have also issued legal notice through Defendant No.5 to the Sub- Registrar, Devanahalli, stating that in spite of the status quo which is binding on the suit schedule property, the Sub-Registrar has acted in his individual capacity and has registered the sale deeds wherein sites were formed in the suit property. 12. It is submitted that, on 07.07.2014 the Defendant No. 2 to 4 who are the partners of Defendant No.1 firm have got issued Legal Notices through Defendant No.5 to the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property, which is highly misconceived and defamatory in nature. The legal notices issued by the Defendant No. 2 to 5 aim at tarnishing the image of the Plaintiffs at the eye of public, as the notices are bereft of facts and vexatious in nature. The Defendants 2 to 5 who are claiming to be acting on the capacity of partners of Defendant No.1 have sent legal notice dated 07.07.2014 only with an intention to defame the Plaintiffs in the eye of the public. The copy of the notices received by the subsequent purchasers are herewith attached and marked as Document No. 6.” 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, fifth defendant appeared and filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to delete the said defendant from the suit. Same was objected to by the plaintiffs. 6. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by the fifth defendant and deleted fifth defendant from the Suit, inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.18 to 21 as under: “18. In view of the above said discussion, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs have not made out prima facie case in their favour and balance of convenience also not lies in favour of the plaintiffs. If an order of temporary injunction is granted, defendants 2 to 4 will be put to untold hardship. On the other hand, if temporary injunction is not granted, no harm will be caused to the plaintiff. If an order of temporary injunction is granted, defendants 2 to 4 will be put to untold hardship. On the other hand, if temporary injunction is not granted, no harm will be caused to the plaintiff. When various proceedings pending with regard to schedule property before various authorities, by suppressing those facts, the plaintiffs are intending to sell sites to various prospective purchasers. If temporary injunction is granted, on the basis of the said order, again plaintiffs may take advantage of the said order and they may sell sites to the prospective purchasers by suppressing the various proceedings pertaining to the schedule property. Hence, my answers to Issues 1 to 3 are in the 'negative'. 19. ISSUE No.4: Defendant No.5 has contended that he being an Advocate and under instructions of defendants 2 to 4, he got issued legal notice and filed case against plaintiffs for the illegal acts on the strength of the alleged documents. Further, he has stated that issuance of legal notice as an Advocate, on behalf of his Clients, cannot be termed as 'extra-legal method'. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no suppression of material facts and all the legal proceedings were mentioned and legal consequences were also narrated in the said notices. In spite of that, plaintiff has made him a party' to the present proceedings. In my considered view, IA No.IX filed on behalf of defendant No.5 deserves to be allowed. Advocate for the plaintiff has brought to the notice of this Court with regard-to- rules framed by the Bar Council of India. Relying on the above said rules, Advocate for the plaintiff has argued that an Advocate shall not in any way communicate or negotiate upon subject matter of the controversy with any party. Further, Advocate for the plaintiff has argued that defendant No.5 being Advocate for defendants 2 to 4 in all the proceedings pending between plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 knowing fully well with regard to result of the case in favour of the plaintiff, he has issued legal notice dated 07-07-2014. 20. In support of his argument, Advocate for the plaintiffs has relied on that order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.38376/2013, copy of the petition of A.A. No.20/2012, order passed in O.S. No.269/2013 and order passed in M.A. Nos. 10/2013 and 11/2013. 20. In support of his argument, Advocate for the plaintiffs has relied on that order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.38376/2013, copy of the petition of A.A. No.20/2012, order passed in O.S. No.269/2013 and order passed in M.A. Nos. 10/2013 and 11/2013. On perusal of the above said records, it reveals that defendants have initiated Arbitration Proceedings against plaintiffs and others wherein. Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District directed both the parties to maintain status quo till next date of hearing. Further, it discloses that the said order of status quo was being extended from-time-to-time and it was in fact extended till 11-09-2012. Admittedly, O.S. No.269/2013 filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs. No doubt, I.A. Nos.1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs in the said suit were rejected, but it discloses that earlier, temporary injunction was granted on 19- 03-2013. When this being the state of affairs, issuance of legal notice by defendant No.5 on behalf of defendants 2 to 4 cannot be termed as an 'extra-legal method. At the cost of repetition, I would like to say that defendant No.5 being an Advocate, has issued notice to defendants 2 to 4. It is duty of an Advocate to follow the instructions given by his clients. It shall be the duty of an Advocate to fearlessly uphold the interest of his client by fair and honourable means with regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. In the present case also, on perusal of the legal notice dated 07-07-2014, this Court is of the opinion that defendant No.5 being an Advocate has issued legal notice on behalf of defendants 2 to 4. Plaintiff has not made out any grounds to show that defendant No.5 has committed an act of defamation and that his act is 'extra-legal method'. 21. Advocate for the plaintiff has relied on the decision reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 221 in the case of D.P. Chadha-versus- Triyugi Narain Mishra and others and AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 509 in the case of Satish Kumar Sharma -versus- Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh. Sum and substance of the above said rulings are that betraying the confidence of a client is a grave misconduct. Sum and substance of the above said rulings are that betraying the confidence of a client is a grave misconduct. With due respect to the decisions relied on the above said rulings, though those decisions are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff /Because it is not the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.5 has deliberately attempted to deceive or practice fraud on the prospective purchasers by issuing notice dated 07-07-2014. Merely because defendant No.5 has represented defendants 2 to 4 in all the proceedings is not a ground to come to conclusion that the defendant No.5 has issued false legal notice. In the notice, he has written only in respect of initiation of the proceedings/order passed by the Court and further, he has mentioned with regard to consequences of the proceedings. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that I.A. No.IX filed on behalf of defendant No.5 deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, this suit is filed by plaintiffs against defendants for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction and damages. Disputes involved in the present case can be effectively decided in the absence of defendant No.5. Since plaintiffs have not made out grounds that presence of defendant No.5 in the present case is necessary for just determination of the case, I.A. No.IX filed by defendant No.5 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, my answer to Point No.4 is in the 'affirmative'.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court in this Revision Petition. 8. Sri Sriranga, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners vehemently contented that taking advantage of the differences among the partners, it is the fifth defendant who is responsible for further complications in the matter and he has taken active role in the litigation as is detailed out in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the plaint, supra. Therefore, he is liable for the suit claim insofar as prayer ‘c’ is concerned as referred to supra. 9. He would further contend that the fifth defendant acted beyond the power of an agent of a party and such action of the fifth defendant must be adjudicated in the suit while considering prayer (c) supra. Therefore impugned order is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. 9. He would further contend that the fifth defendant acted beyond the power of an agent of a party and such action of the fifth defendant must be adjudicated in the suit while considering prayer (c) supra. Therefore impugned order is bad in law and sought for allowing the revision petition. 10. In support of his arguments, Sri Sriranga, learned Senior Advocate relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P.Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra and others reported in (2001)2 SCC 221 . In the said decision, he invited attention of this Court to paragraphs 24 and 25 and for ready reference those paragraphs are culled out hereunder: “24. It has been a saying as old as the profession itself that the court and counsel are two wheels of the chariot of justice. In the adversarial system, it will be more appropriate to say that while the Judge holds the reigns, the two opponent counsel are the wheels of the chariot. While the direction of the movement is controlled by the Judge holding the reigns, the movement itself is facilitated by the wheels without which the chariot of justice may not move and may even collapse. Mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between Bench and Bar smoothen the movement of the chariot. As responsible officers of the court, as they are called — and rightly, the counsel have an overall obligation of assisting the courts in a just and proper manner in the just and proper administration of justice. Zeal and enthusiasm are the traits of success in profession but overzealousness and misguided enthusiasm have no place in the personality of a professional. 25. An advocate while discharging duty to his client, has a right to do everything fearlessly and boldly that would advance the cause of his client. After all he has been engaged by his client to secure justice for him. A counsel need not make a concession merely because it would please the Judge. Yet a counsel, in his zeal to earn success for a client, need not step over the well- defined limits or propriety, repute and justness. Independence and fearlessness are not licences of liberty to do anything in the court and to earn success to a client whatever be the cost and whatever be the sacrifice of professional norms.” 11. Yet a counsel, in his zeal to earn success for a client, need not step over the well- defined limits or propriety, repute and justness. Independence and fearlessness are not licences of liberty to do anything in the court and to earn success to a client whatever be the cost and whatever be the sacrifice of professional norms.” 11. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Kumar Sharma vs. Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2001 SC 509 . In the said decision, he invited attention of this Court to paragraph No.10 which reads as under: “10. The profession of law is called a noble profession. It does not remain noble merely by calling it as such, unless there is a continued, corresponding and expected performance of a noble profession. Its nobility has to be preserved, protected and promoted. An institution cannot survive on its name or on its past glory alone. The glory and greatness of an institution depends on its continued and meaningful performance with grace and dignity. The profession of law being noble and an honourable one, it has to continue its meaningful, useful and purposeful performance inspired by and keeping in view the high and rich traditions consistent with its grace, dignity, utility and prestige. Hence the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder inter alia aimed to achieve the same ought to be given effect to in their true letter and spirit to maintain clean and efficient Bar in the country to serve the cause of justice which again is a noble one.” 12. Sri R.P.Somashekharaiah, learned counsel representing the fifth defendant is absent today. 13. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the petitioners, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, no doubt some specific actions are attributed to fifth defendant so as to arraign the said defendant as a party to the suit. 15. Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 in the plaint referred to supra would make out such actions which according to the revision petitioners are beyond the scope of a practicing advocate. 16. 15. Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 in the plaint referred to supra would make out such actions which according to the revision petitioners are beyond the scope of a practicing advocate. 16. Learned Trial Judge has also taken into consideration in paragraphs 18 to 21 of the impugned order as referred to supra those allegations and has assigned proper reasons for deleting the fifth defendant. 17. No doubt in the case of D.P.Chadha supra, Their Lordships in paragraphs 24 and 25 have detailed out what is that line (Laxman Rekha) where a practicing advocate is required to advise his client and not to cross the same. 18. According to Sri Sriranga, said line is though thin but it is subtle in nature. What exactly is the advice that is sought for by a party, was only on the question of law based on the factual aspects of the matter which differs from case to case. 19. In the case on hand, in view of the allegations found in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that applying the principles of law laid down in D.P.Chadha supra would not improve the case of the petitioners further. 20. Likewise, in the case of Satish Kumar Sharma supra, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the factual aspects of the case on hand, also dealt with the sanctity of legal profession. 21. It is often said that the profession of Law and profession of Medicine are called ‘NOBLE’ professions. At times it results in ‘no bell’ profession. Merely calling a noble profession is not enough unless the legal fraternity achieves nobility in the profession. 22. Few minor aberrations are always there when a matter is hotly contested. But in a given case, to attribute malafides to a practicing advocate is not uncommon, but proving the same is difficult. 23. Unnecessarily, a practicing advocate is not only required to defend the suit, but also be exposed to the unwanted humiliation in some cases. 24. Whether at all fifth defendant has really crossed the ‘Laxman Rekha’ in the case on hand or not, cannot be decided only based on the plaint averments and written statement or the contentions taken by the fifth defendant in the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 25. 24. Whether at all fifth defendant has really crossed the ‘Laxman Rekha’ in the case on hand or not, cannot be decided only based on the plaint averments and written statement or the contentions taken by the fifth defendant in the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 25. Suffice to say that if the fifth defendant has acted beyond the scope of his power of vakalath, or he has acted detrimental to the interest of legal profession, petitioners can very well get redressed their grievances before the appropriate forum by proceeding under Advocates Act. 26. With that liberty for the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that presence of the fifth defendant in the suit for the adjudication is not necessary. 27. Therefore, impugned Order needs no interference. 28. Hence, the following: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed