JAI HIND BUILDCOM Vs. HEERALAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners -defendant Nos.2 and 3 have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 24/1/2015 (Annexure -3) and 17/3/2015 (Annexure -7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.89 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 -plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent Nos.4 to 6, and the present petitioners -defendants alleging that the petitioners i.e. the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were raising the construction on the land in question without obtaining legal permission from the respondent No.5 i.e. the defendant No.1 in the suit. In the said suit, the Advocate Shri Indresh Kumar had filed a memo stating that he would be appearing for the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The said memo having been objected by the respondents -plaintiffs on the ground that the said Advocate had earlier given the opinion in respect of the property in question sought by the respondent No.5 -Nagar Parishad -defendant No.1, he could not be permitted to appear for the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The Trial Court vide order dated 24/1/2015 had allowed the said application of the plaintiffs, and held that the said Advocate Mr.Indresh Kumar cannot be permitted to appear for the petitioners -defendant Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of the said memo. It appears that thereafter the said Advocate had filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners i.e. the defendant Nos.2 and 3, who had filed the application under Section 30 of the Advocates Act. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 17/3/2015.

(3.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Goyal for the petitioners that there was no conflict of interest amongst the defendant No.1 Nagar Parishad and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 on whose behalf the Advocate had filed the Vakalatnama and even otherwise as per Section 30 of the Advocates Act, he has right to practice in all the Courts. Mr. Goyal submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court not permitting the said Advocate to appear for the petitioners is without authority and illegal. However, the learned counsel Mr. Peush Nag for the respondents -plaintiffs has submitted that the said Advocate Mr. Indresh Kumar had given his opinion in respect of the property in question, as sought by the defendant No.1 -Nagar Parishad and he being also member of the Committee constituted by the defendant No.1 for conversion of land use, he could not be permitted to appear for the petitioners. According to him, there being no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court, this Court should not interfere with the same.