RAMANATHA MANNADIAR Vs. T.K. RAMASWAMI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat granting permission to the respondent vakil who was appearing and acting for the 215th defendant in O.S. No. 114 of 1933, on his file to accept the vakalat and act for the plaintiffs in the said suit. The petitioner herein is the 51st defendant in the suit and he is the manager of one of three tavazhies,constituting the tarwad. The objection of the petitioner to the order under revision is that the learned Subordinate Judge exercised a jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity. It is contended for the petitioner that there is a conflict between the case of the 215th defendant and his representatives in interest.

(2.) THE general principle with regard to the appearance of counsel for two clients whose interests may conflict is set out in "Halsbury's Laws of England" (Hailsham's edition), Volume II, at page 532. It is stated there that where interests of two clients may conflict, counsel ought not to appear for both of them. Likewise, counsel ought not to accept a brief against a party even though the party refused to retain him in any case in which he would be embarrassed in the discharge of his duty by reason of confidence reposed in him by that party. At page 534 of the same volume occurs the following passage:

(3.) THE only other ground that is emphasised is that there is a conflict of interest between both parties particularly on the question of improvements. The vakil in his counter affidavit filed in the application for stay made in this Court says that he has seen no documents on the question of improvements and that there are no such documents in existence. He also states that he received no instructions from the 215th defendant after May 1937 except to get the arrangement recorded. In the reply affidavit filed there is no refutation of these statements.