VEERAPPA CHETTIAR (MINOR) Vs. PGSUNDARESA SASTRIGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Srirangam who directed two pleaders not to appear for the defendants in two suits pending in his Court as the plaintiff objected to their appearance inasmuch as they had appeared for him in previous suits against the defend-ant in which the subject- matter was the same as in the suits now pending. The first contention of Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Aiyar is that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. It is argued that the pleaders are not parties to the suits and that they have no right of appeal against such an order and therefore the order is without jurisdiction and is not covered by Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

(2.) The District Munsif purported to act under Rule 277 which is in these terms: Except when specially authorised by the Court, or by consent of the party, a pleader who has advised in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, or has drawn pleadings in connection with any such matter, or has, during the progress of any such suit, appeal or other proceeding acted for a party, shall not, unless he first gives the party for whom he has advised, drawn pleadings or acted, an opportunity of engaging his services, appear in such suit, appeal or other proceeding, or in any appeal, or application for revision arising therefrom or in any matter connected therewith, for any person, whose interest is opposed to that of his former client, provided that the consent of the party shall be presumed if he engages another pleader to appear for him in such suit, appeal or other proceeding without offering an engagement to the pleader whose services he originally engaged.

(3.) It is conceded by Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Aiyar that the Court has jurisdiction either to grant or to refuse such authority when a pleader applies for the same under the rule. But it is urged that when he does not make an application for special authority the Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order against him and that the only course open against a pleader who violates the rule is by a proceeding under the Legal Practitioners Act for unprofessional conduct.