IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.930 OF 2011 Between: Keerthi Rashmika. - - - Petitioner/Plaintiff. AND B. Vinod Kumar and two others. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.930 OF 2011 ORDER: The Revision Petitioner is the Plaintiff in O.S. No.1424 of 2004 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. She filed I.A. No.2733 of 2010 with a prayer to discharge the counsel appearing for the Defendant No.2, on the ground that the counsel being the brother of the defendant No.2 was actively interested in the suit property and thus disqualified to appear as per Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. The said application was dismissed by the Court below with exemplary costs by order dated 05.02.2011 holding that Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 which provided that an Advocate should not enter appearance before the Court, Tribunal or Authority mentioned in Section 30 of the Act if the sole or any member thereof was related to the Advocate had no application at all to the facts and circumstances of the case. Aggrieved by the said order dated 05.02.2011 the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Though the conclusion of the Court below that Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’) had no application, could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to Rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, the learned counsel vehemently contended that it was a clear case where the counsel for the defendant No.2 suffered disqualification and therefore, the Court below was not justified in dismissing the application. Rule 9 of the Rules relied upon by the learned counsel reads as under: “9. An Advocate should not act or plead in any matter in which he is himself pecuniarily interested.” It is to be noticed that in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 2733 of 2010 it was specifically pleaded by the plaintiff/petitioner that the counsel for the defendant No.2 was actively interested in the suit property and the reasons therefor were also explained. Obviously, the Court below did not enquire into the said allegations and the question whether the Bar under Rule 9 was attracted, was not considered at all. Hence, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter requires re-consideration. Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders afresh in I.A.No.2733 of 2010 following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI Date: 08-08-2011. Dsh.