KEGU BHIL Vs. JAYPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS have directed this revision against the order dtd. 7.8.2001 passed by MACT Jhabua in Claim Case No. 180/2001 thereby refusing permission to the applicants to engage some other advocate of their choice to appear before the said Court in claim case filed on behalf of the applicants.

(2.) THE facts in brief of the case are :

(3.) IN the rules it is further stated that in case such consent is not produced before the Court, then the Court shall consider the reasons stated in the application for not obtaining consent of the earlier advocate, and grant permission to the party to engage some other advocate. In view of the provisions of Rule 39 of the Bar Council of India, framed under the Advocates Act and known as Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette Rules, when the earlier advocate is not willing to give his consent the Court in appropriate case is competent to grant permission to the parties to engage some other advocate.