SURENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI N.K. Shukla; Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama subsequently but he has not obtained the consent of the counsel who was already appearing in the case and had riled this petition, nor he has made any application stating the reasons for not obtaining the content. Under Rule 39 of the Rules framed by the Bar Councilor India under the Advocates Act, known as "Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette" which is extracted below:

(2.) THERE is a prohibition that an Advocate shall not enter appearance in any case in which there is already a vakalat or memo or appearance riled by the Advocate engaged by the party except his consent is obtained and in case such consent is not produced, he shall apply to the Court stating reasons why such consent could not be produced and he could appear only after obtaining the permission of the Court.

(3.) THE requirement of the aforesaid provisions of law have not been satisfied. No consent has been obtained from the counsel already appearing. No application has been made stating the reason as to why such consent could not be taken or obtained. Further, it is not the case that the Advocate who was ai1pearing in the case, ceased to practice or has by reason of infirmity of mind or body or otherwise, become illegible to continue to act. The purpose of the rule is that the responsibility of the lawyer qua the case must he fastened and there may not be uncertainty in the Court that every time the lawyer is changed and because of such change, the case is adjourned.