1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3977 OF 2009 Shri. Omprakash Sitaram Agrawal, R/o. 122, Navi Peth, Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus Shri. Madhusudan Hari Damale, R/o. 294, Baliram Peth, Jalgaon and others ....Respondents. Shri. P. S. Shendurnikar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. Anoop V. Patil h/f. Shri. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 6th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition is preferred by the original plaintiff, challenging rejection of application, Exh. 64, by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, by his order dated 6.12.2008. The petitioner/plaintiff had moved an application under Order 1, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), for direction to the defendants to conduct the case through any one of the advocates. This application has been rejected and hence, the plaintiff has preferred this petition. 2 2. The rejection of the application is on the ground that the defendants have every right to defend the suit by engaging separate advocates of their choice and there is no bar for such participation by all the advocates separately, engaged by the defendants. It has been held that the Court cannot restrain the defendants nor can defeat the rights of the defendants from engaging the advocates of their choice. 3. Shri. Shendurnikar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Order 1, Rule 11 of C.P.C. empowers the Trial Court to direct the parties to conduct the suit through such a person as it deems fit and proper. According to him, the defendant No. 1 has filed the written statement, opposing the claim, whereas all other defendants have adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1. However, all of them have engaged separate lawyers for conducting the proceedings. Relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1961 BOMBAY 94 in the case of Venkatrao A. Patil and Sons Ltd., Vs. Narayanlal Bansilal and others, he has urged that in such a situation, the Trial Court can exercise power under Order 1, Rule 11 of C.P.C. and direct all the defendants that they should conduct the case only through one advocate of their choice. According to him, although this judgment was cited before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to issue such directions. 3 4. The dispute involved in the suit is regarding specific performance of contract dated 6.11.1998. The said contract is between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and another Arun Damale, son of defendant No. 1, who has expired. The defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not parties to the said agreement. Shri. Shendurnikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are legal heirs of Arun, who was party to the said agreement. In the background of this factual position, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the ruling cited by the petitioner cannot be taking in to consideration at this stage, as the evidence has not yet started. It has been held that every defendant has right to engage the separate lawyer to conduct the case. 5. Order 1, Rule 11 of C.P.C. although confers power upon the Trial Court to direct the parties to conduct the suit through one advocate, the same is discretionary. It has to be read with Rule 12, which permits the parties to the suit represented by an advocate to plead and act on their behalf in the proceedings. Although the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 is said to be adopted by all other defendants, the question, whether they should be directed to conduct the case only through one advocate, shall come up at the time of recording the evidence, as has been rightly observed by the Trial Court. It is a fact that the parties have engaged the separate lawyers and they have right to separately participate in the proceedings through their individual lawyer. However, it is always open for a Court, at the time of leading of 4 evidence or even at the time of advancing arguments, to direct the parties that the proceedings should be conducted by them only through one advocate. It has to be decided after taking into consideration, the stand of parties, the manner of conducting proceedings and the interest of each individual defendant. At this stage, such a prohibition cannot be imposed. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application, Exh. 64. 6. In the result, there is no substance in the petition. The same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that order impugned in this petition shall not prevent the Trial Court from exercising its discretion as conferred by Order 1, Rule 11 of C.P.C. on relevant considerations, at any further stage of the proceedings. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp3977.09