IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.5754 of 2010 Between: Kotagiri Bhuma Goud … Petitioner and Syed Wajid Ali and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.5754 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2010 passed in I.A. No.488 of 2010 in O.S. No.120 of 2005 by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant and the 2nd respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.120 of 2005. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.488 of 2010 under Order XIII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for return of original documents Exs.B-3 to B-9 to him. The 2nd respondent herein filed O.S. No.120 of 2005. During pendency of the suit, the parties therein were entered into compromise and no appeal was filed against the decree. In the said suit, the revision petitioner filed some original documents and those documents are essential to him. Therefore, seeking to return those documents, he filed I.A. No.488 of 2010 but the Court below dismissed the said I.A. Assailing the same, he filed the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the counsel, who earlier filed vakalath was a counsel on record to him. Since the suit is terminated by way of disposal in the month of November, 2008, he has no locus standi to prevent the revision petitioner from making application for obtaining the documents that were filed by him in the Court by appointing a counsel of his choice. Therefore, the Court below committed an error in dismissing the said I.A. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the case of R.D. SAXENA v. BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA[1] and submitted that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the said I.A. on the ground that the proceedings in the suit are not ended as per clause (d) of Order III of Rule 4 CPC. He further submitted that in the case referred to above the Apex Court categorically held that if the litigation is pending, the party has the right to get the papers from the advocate and it is impermissible for the erstwhile counsel to retain the case bundle on the premise that fees were yet to be paid. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. It is to be seen that on what ground the said I.A. was dismissed and whether it is justified? As could be seen from the impugned order it is clear that the revision petitioner appointed one Sri Agina Srinivas as his counsel and thereafter the matter was compromised and accordingly the same was disposed of. The main grievance of Sri Agina Srinivas was that the memo of withdrawal filed without his notice and signature and the revision petitioner is also avoiding to pay the legal fees. Therefore, without termination of his vakalath, filing of application to return the documents without his notice is illegal. After considering the issue, the Court below following the Order III Rule 4 (2) (d) of CPC dismissed the said I.A. Therefore, it is necessary to see what Order III Rule 4 (2) (d) says, which reads as under: “4. Appointment of pleader.-(2) Every such appointment shall be (filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be) deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. (Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,- (a) an application for the review of decree or order in the suit, (b) an application under section 144 or under section 152 of this Code, in relation to any decree or order made in the suit, (c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and (d) any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of moneys paid into the Court in connection with the suit.)” From the above, it is clear that until all proceedings in the suit are ended the counsel, who filed vakalath, would be deemed to be in force. But, in the instant case, the suit is ended in compromise and the same was accordingly disposed of. As there was no appeal as against the order passed in the said suit, it can be said that the proceedings are ended in the suit. However, the Court below taking into consideration the explanation under Order III Rule 4(d) dismissed the said I.A. Therefore, exclusively it cannot be said that the Court below had committed an error. Now, it is also to be seen that what the Apex Court held in the judgment referred to above that was relied upon by the counsel for the revision petitioner. “17. If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate. But if the advocate who is changed midway adopts the stand that he would not return the file until the fees claimed by him are paid, the situation perhaps may turn to dangerous proportions. There may be cases when a party has no resources to pay the huge amount claimed by the advocate as his remuneration. A party in a litigation may have a version that he has already paid the legitimate fee to the advocate. At any rate if the litigation is pending the party has the right to get the papers from the advocate whom he has changed so that the new counsel can be briefed by him effectively. In either case it is impermissible for the erstwhile counsel to retain the case bundle on the premise that fees were yet to be paid.” The Apex Court categorically held in the judgment referred to above that if the litigation is pending, the party has the right to get the papers from the advocate whom he has changed so that the new counsel can be briefed by him effectively. From the above, it can be said that even if the litigation is pending, the party has the right to change his erstwhile counsel and represent the case by appointing a new counsel of his choice. It is also categorically held by the Apex Court that if the advocate who is changed midway adopts the stand that he would not return the file until the fees claimed by him are paid, the situation perhaps may turn to dangerous proportions. In the instant case, the main grievance of erstwhile counsel Sri Agina Srinivas is that the revision petitioner is avoiding to pay the legal fees. In this regard, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is needless to observe that the counsel is always at liberty to avail his remedies that are available under law to recover the fees from the party concerned. For the above reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the legal propositions laid down by the Apex Court and the submissions made by the learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to return the documents to the party concerned. Accordingly, the Court below is directed to return the documents to the party concerned. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.12.2010 LSK [1] (2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 264