HIGHCOURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MAIN CASE No: Crl.P.No.5920 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 03. 13.10.2025 Dr.YLR,J I.A.No.6 of 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I.A.No.06 of 2025 is allowed, inasmuch as the petitioner/client is at liberty to engage another counsel of his choice. If the services of the learned counsel are not to the satisfaction of the client, the client is entitled to change the counsel as per his choice. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma1, observed that an advocate has no lien over the litigation files or papers of his client for unpaid fees, and that withholding such documents or refusing to return them amounts to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Instead, the advocate may pursue appropriate legal remedies to recover any dues but cannot hold the client’s case hostage. Contd… 1 [(2000) 7 SCC 264] A similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Jitubhai Rupabhai Raval v. Baria Kanabhai Vaghabhai2. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Mysore v. M. Rajashekar3, observed that an advocate has no lien over the litigation files or papers of his client for unpaid fees. In view of the above reasons, the I.A.No.06 of 2025 is allowed. _________ Dr.YLR,J I.A.No.07 of 2025 Post the matter after four (04) weeks. _________ Dr.YLR,J RSI 2 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9062 of 2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023 3 2017 ILR Kar 59