S R CHANNAVEERIAH Vs. B PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether a Civil Court can determine the 'Vakalathnama' of an Advocate on the ground that he is likely to be called as a witness on behalf of a partv to the suit.

(2.) The above question has arisen in this way: The plaintiff in O.S No 42/1969 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, preferred an application, purporting to be under S.151 CPC , to the effect that the Advocate namely, Mr. O.Veerabasappa, who is appearing on behalf of the defendant in the suit, should be called upon to withdraw from the suit. The ground alleged is that the Advocate had participated in a 'Panchayathi' held in connection with the differences that had arisen regarding a partition of properties between the plaintiff on the one hand and the father of the defendant on the other There were other panchsyatdars too. As to what tranpired at such 'Panchayathi', and whether any decisions of a binding character were arrived at, the allegations are singularly vague.

(3.) This application was opposed bv the learned Advocate concerned. He has averred with emphasis that the allegations in question were false and mala fide. The application came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. Hence this revision.