APARNA v. RANJITH BN

(BY SRI.SHIVAREDDY R., ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.08.2024; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH ) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2024 PASSED ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER III RULE 4(2) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC IN MVC NO.2127/2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.JUDGE AND MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-F) AND - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1533 WP No. 17233 of 2024 HC-KAR CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, an injured in a road accident, is granted compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and some part of the compensation is in deposit with the II Additional Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner has filed an application with the Tribunal for permission to appoint another counsel on her behalf so that she could apply for withdrawal of the amount in deposit. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 13.02.2024, has rejected the application reasoning thus: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1533 WP No. 17233 of 2024 HC-KAR "On perusal of entire materials on record, it is found that another counsel on record by name M T Nagaraj has not given no objection vakalath to the petitioner and he submits that it is unfair practice on the other counsel filing vakalath without no objection. Petitioner even though issued notice to the counsel on record, the vakalath given by her was not cancelled. Hence the fresh vakalath filed by the other counsel cannot be accepted when the counsel on record has objected and the vakalath even earlier is not cancelled."

#2. Sri Abhinay Y T, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the judgment of a division Bench of this Court in MFA No.6526/2013 to assert that a party to judicial proceedings cannot be denied his/her right to appoint a new advocate of his/her choice and the Courts/tribunals cannot ask for no objection of the Advocate already on record to accept the vakalathnama filed by another Advocate. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1533 WP No. 17233 of 2024 HC-KAR

#3. This Court's observation in the afore Judgment, which is in line with the argument canvassed by Sri Abhinay Y T, reads as under: "6. As could be seen observations made two decisions extracted above, a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate.

#7. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without by withdrawing vakalatnama or authorization. On discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have the case file returned to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In any proceeding, - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1533 WP No. 17233 of 2024 HC-KAR including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing restriction on the said right can’t be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate."

#4. The Division Bench, apart from the above, has also observed that if a learned member of the Bar is discharged but has a claim against his client, the proper course for such member would be to return the brief and to agitate for the claim in a proper forum in accordance with law. This Court finds that the Tribunal's reasoning is ex facie contrary to law, and therefore, there must be interference but without prejudice to the petitioner's counsel now on record before the Tribunal to pursue for redressal of the claim that could be. In the light of the afore, the following: - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1533 WP No. 17233 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The Tribunal's impugned order dated

13.02.2024 in MVC No.2727/2015 quashed allowing application permitting the petitioner to engage another counsel. [c] The petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal without further notice on

02.02.2026 for just orders. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-