Whether Advocate can refuse to give "No objection" to his client if client wished to engage other Advocate?
The normal conduct of a client is that if he wishes to change
his counsel for some reason or the other, he should approach him for
return of the brief and to obtain “No Objection” from him. In case his
counsel returns the brief, it is well and good and if he refuses to return
the brief or refuses to give “No Objection”, the client may invoke the
provisions of Order 3 Rule 4 of the CPC to redress his grievances.
However, in the present case, the applicants have failed to that and
without determining the appointment of their earlier counsel, Shri Ng.
Kumar, Advocate, they had moved an application for deleting their
names from the array of parties in the writ petition through another
Advocate which is unfair and unreasonable on the part of the applicants.
The moment an Advocate is engaged, a client is expected to be fair and
reasonable to him and ought to give proper instructions accordingly. But
in any case and for whatever reasons, the applicants have expressed
their view that they don’t want Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate to continue as
their counsel and that a new Advocate be engaged in his place and
since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said R.D. Saxena’s Case
(supra) has categorically observed that for whatever reason, if a client
does not want to continue the engagement of a particular Advocate, it
would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the
profession that he would return the brief to the client and it is time to
hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative,
this court is of the view that this application is liable to be allowed. In
view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is the
duty of Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate to give “No Objection” so that the
applicants could engage a new Advocate of their choice. If Shri Ng.
Kumar, Advocate is of the view that the action of the applicants being
unfair and unreasonable, has caused prejudice to his professional right
and privilege as a counsel, it is open to him to seek appropriate relief
and redress his grievance from an appropriate forum.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M.C. (W.P. (C)) No. 147 of 2016
(Ref:- W.P. (C) No. 202 of 2015)
Shri Ashem Shyamkesho Singh,
- Versus -
Thokchom Ranjan Meetei,
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
Date of Judgment & Order :: 08-07-2016