MOHANLAL SEWLAL, A FIRM Vs. PROBODH KRISHNA SHOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was obtained by the petitioner against an order of the President of the Tribunal refusing the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of the money lying before him through another advocate. The facts as they appear on record are very unfortunate.

(2.) MR . Shome was engaged by the petitioner as an advocate in connection with an acquisition case pending before the Collector. A certain sum was awarded by the Collector and a reference was filed through Mr. Shome. The reference succeeded in part. Thereafter it appears disputes arose between Mr. Shome and the petitioner as regards the payment of the sums due to Mr. Shome as his fees for the work done by him in the acquisition case and in the reference case. The petitioner engaged another lawyer to with -draw the compensation money awarded to him which was lying before the President of the Tribunal, Mr. Shome made an application for payment to him of the sums which he claimed on account; of his fees and costs. This application was rejected by the President of the Tribunal by his order dated 7th January 1949. Mr. Shome has not moved this Court in revision against the order of the President of the Tribunal refusing his prayer for payment of the sums due to him out of the money lying with the President. The petitioner, as we have said, has moved this Court in revision.

(3.) IT is not necessary to express any final opinion on this point. It seems to us that prima facie Mr. Shome did not cease to be the advocate entitled to act on behalf of the petitioner the moment the reference case was disposed of.