SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. MANGAL MURTI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the order impugned in this revision, at the instance if the defendants, the learned Judge of the trial Court, restrained Shri O.K. Dixit, counsel enagaged in the suit from his participation in the proceedings of the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. The suit is by the plaintiffs as landlords, for eviction of the defendant as tenant from the suit premises.

(2.) THE impugned order was passed on the application of the defendants under Order 3, Rule 1, read with Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code'). It was stated in that application that Shri D.K. Dixit, advocate has been a witness to the compromise talks held between the parties, prior to the filing of the suit. In those talks there was a proposal of increase of rent of the accommodation by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in their reply denied the fact that Shri D.K. Dixit, their advocate at any point of time, was a witness to any compromise talks for enhancement of rent. .

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the non -applicant placed heavy reliance on a decision in the case of All India Reporter Ltd. v. G.D. Moohe and others (1950 NU 187). In this case the observations of the learned Judge are as under: -