PRABHU LAL Vs. KUMAR KRISHNA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the application was by one Nunnumull that his attorney should be discharged and that the attorney should be ordered to make over all the papers in a certain suit, No. 1171 of 1913, to another attorney: and the order which was made by the learned Judge--one of the defendants Nannumull appearing in person and the attorney consenting--was "that the attorney be discharged from further acting as the attorney for both the defendants, Prabhu Lal and Nunnumull, in this suit and that the defendants be at liberty to appoint another attorney to act for them in the reference before the Official Referee of this Court," and it was further ordered that the attorney Babu Kumar Krishna Dutt without prejudice to his lien for costs due to him in this suit do produce before the said Official Referee such papers and documents as may be in his possession when required by the said defendants upon their paying beforehand to the said Babu Kumar Krishna Dutt his costs of and charges for such attendance "

(2.) Now, just to dispose of one point at once: it was argued that inasmuch as the attorney had been acting on behalf of both the defendants, the application ought to have been made by both of them and that the attorney could not be discharged unless the application were made by both of them. As a matter of fact, the order is to the effect that the attorney shall be discharged from acting for both the defendants. Therefore, the learned Judge must have understood, when he made the order, that the application was made to thai effect. The defendants are father and son, and the son has sworn an affidavit that he has had control of the litigation not only on behalf of himself but also on behalf of his father, and this application was made on behalf of his father as well as for himself: and I do not think there is any substance in that objection. But the point of substance is whether under the circumstances of this case, the learned Judge has made a proper order when the effect of his order was that the papers should remain with the first attorney and that they should be produced for the purpose of being used in the suit by him and that the defendants should be called upon to pay his Costs of such production. In my opinion that is not a proper order. First of all, it appears that the attorney had been acting on behalf of the client in the ordinary way without any qualification at all. Then something happened, and there was a dispute between the parties, the defendant saying that the attorney had refused to go on acting for the client unless money was provided by the client. As against that the attorney has sworn that he never did anything of the kind, and I am not going to arrive at or trying to arrive at any decision as to which of those two gentlemen is correct in his account of the interview. But there is a letter of the 2nd of July 1915 which is referred to at page 21 of the paper-book, and that appears to me to be an admission by the attorney that he had refused to go on acting for the client unless his out- of-pocket expenses were paid. Now, if the relationship between the attorney and the client was the ordinary relationship between an attorney and his client, I do not think it would be disputed that that would amount to a discharge of the attorney by himself, and if it were a discharge of the attorney by himself then he could not claim to retain the papers when they were wanted by his former client for the purpose of continuing the litigation. The most he would be entitled to would be to have his lien protected by an undertaking given by the new attorney.

(3.) But it was said by the learned Counsel who appeared for the attorney that, as a matter of fact the client had himself discharged the attorney, and he pointed particularly to a letter written in November 1914 which appears at page 41 of the paper-book, the effect of which was--it was written by another firm of attorneys--:to give the first attorney notice that Messrs. Prabhu Lal and Nunnumull desired to change their attorney and asking for a bill of costs in order that it might be delivered to the taxing office and he might be paid and the change effected as soon as possible, and he argued that that amounted to a discharge by the client of his attorneys. I do not think that that can be so, having regard, at all events, to what happened afterwards. If we look at the document which is referred to at pages 26 and 40 of the paper-book, it is clear that the attorney did continue to act as attorney right way down to the 13th of July 1915, and in those circumstances, I do not think it is possible for him now to come forward and say that he was in fact discharged by the client.