A. RAJENDRAN Vs. ARULANTHASAMY NADAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.1141 to 1158 of 2013 have been filed by one A.Rajendran, Advocate, CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.1940 to 1953 of 2013 have been preferred by the claimants. Inasmuch as these two batches of the cases arise from the one and the same order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur, they were heard together and are decided by this common order.

(2.) The succinctly stated facts are as follows:

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.1141 to 1158 of 2013, the petitioner is a practising Advocate and he appeared for the claimants and conducted the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, Reference Court as well as this Court for a period of nearly 17 years, without receiving any amount towards fees, miscellaneous expenses and other professional charges; however, the claimants have indulged in an unfair practice by filing cheque applications through another Advocate without obtaining consent from the petitioner and without seeking leave from the Court below; and hence, the Court below ought to have dismissed the cheque applications filed by the claimants. According to the learned counsel, the claimants are at liberty to engage anyone as they like, but before engaging another counsel, they have to pay the legal fees to the counsel already on record; without discharging that duty, the claimants have no right to engage another counsel and to prevent such erosion, it is a practise in force that they have to obtain permission from the Court before whom the case is pending, whereas no such permission was obtained by the claimants; and as such, further proceedings issuing cheques to the claimants with respect to the compensation for the lands acquired, cannot be allowed to proceed. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the order impugned herein and allow the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the Advocate Rajendran.