SINDHU Vs. MALLIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sindhu, a tribal lady, along with her father filed O.P.(MV) 3636/1995 before the MACT, Muvattupuzha claiming compensation as her mother died in a motor traffic accident. By Ext. P1 settlement an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded on 24.11.1997. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was allowed to be withdrawn by the 1st petitioner whereas her father was allowed to withdraw Rs. 20,000/-. Later the father of the petitioner also died and the petitioner had to obtain a succession certificate. While so, there arose some dispute between the petitioner and the counsel viz., Sri. M.C. George who was appearing for the petitioner in O.P. (MV) 3636/1995 relating to the advocates fee. The matter went up to the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Piravom, and there was a settlement regarding the fee payable and the counsel had agreed to issue a no objection certificate for engaging another lawyer for the further prosecution of the case. Later when the petitioner wanted to file a petition for release of some portion of the amount under deposit for purchase of a bit of property, the counsel did not issue a no objection certificate for engaging another lawyer. The petitioner filed Ext. P2 application before the Tribunal for accepting the engagement of the new counsel without a no objection certificate from the former counsel. Ext. P3 application also was filed for release of the amount. The Tribunal rejected both Exts. P2 and P3 applications by Exts. P5 and P6 orders respectively. Ext. P5 order reads:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt. Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Surendra Mohan submitted that he filed this O.P. without receiving any remuneration from the client considering the hardship to which an illiterate lady of the tribal community was subjected. It was further submitted that the Tribunal should have allowed Ext. P2 application seeking permission to engage another counsel without a no objection certificate from her former counsel as it was allowable under R.28 of the Civil Rules of Practice and also in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma ( 2000 (7) SCC 264 ). In the above cited case the question that had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the advocate has got a lien over the papers of his client and whether it can be retained for compelling the client to pay his fees. The Supreme Court held that the advocate has no lien over the papers of the client and he cannot retain the papers and the remedy available to the advocate was to approach the court for realisation of the agreed fee. There the Supreme Court held: