VARDHAMAN DHURGAPRASAD SHETTY AND ORS. Vs. SANGAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners -plaintiffs requesting the Court to set -aside the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, D.K. Mangalore on I.A. No. 39 in O.S. No. 103/2012, which is produced at Annexure -A.

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel, so also the learned counsel on record for the petitioners, and also the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for respondent -defendant No. 7.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has submitted that the application filed by the respondent herein before the Trial Court, making a request to the Court to direct the counsel for plaintiffs i.e., Sri O.T. Bhat, to withdraw his vakalath on behalf of the plaintiffs, and if he does not intend to do so, then, determine his vakalatnama on behalf of the plaintiffs. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the said application is not supported by the affidavit and only memorandum of facts was filed supporting the said application. He has also submitted that the only allegation of the other side is that, the counsel for the plaintiffs was present in the function after the demise of Swamiyar and in the presence of the persons gathered there, he read over the contents of the will and he has signed the document, which is marked as Ex. P -18. He has further submitted that the said document Ex. P -18 is not the material document in the case. The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction, to succeed in the suit, plaintiffs will have to establish the Will and for the Will is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs is not at all the witness nor his evidence is required for the same. He has also submitted that only on the basis of the document Ex. P -18 signed by the said counsel, his vakalath cannot be terminated.