APHC010446212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI i 050 B FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '»/ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2375 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to direct to the Lerned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur to accept the Vakalath on behalf of petitioners/ Plaintiffs and permit the new Counsel to represent on behalf of Plaintiffs, without insisting NOC from the earlier counsel in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. Between: 1. M.Naga Rama Sanjeeva Reddy @ M.Naga Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o.Late Nagi Reddy, Aged about 38 years. Residing at Door No. 16/111, Nagireddy Street, Jammalamadugu Town, YSR Kadapa District. 2. Cheppali Baludu,, S/o.Narayana, Aged about 55 years. Residing at Kacheri Street, Pulivendula Town, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND Basireddy Rajeswara Reddy, S/o.Late Veera Reddy, Reisiding at Door No. 10/240/1, Sai Rajeswari Colony, Proddatur-516 360, YSR Kadapa District ...Respondent/Defendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 > f- ,i f Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated w, ■in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to behalf of dispense with the filing of the Original Vakalath O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional on %• ' * Petitioners/Plaintiffs, filed in District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. : SRI HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the Respondent : The Court made the following ORDER : '.Vi APHC010446212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 [3329] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2375/2025 Between; 1.M.NAGA RAMA SANJEEVA REDDY @ M.NAGA SANJEEVA REDDY, S/O.LATE NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 16/111, NAGIREDDY STREET, TOWN, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. JAMMALAMADUGU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2.CHEPPAII BALUDU,, S/O.NARAYANA, RESIDING AT KACHERI STREET, PULIVENDULA TOWN YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER{S) AND 1.BASIREDDY RAJESWARA REDDY, S/o.Late Veera Reddy, Reisiding at Door No. 10/240/1, Sai Rajeswari Colony, Proddatur-516 360, YSR Kadapa District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed, being aggrieved by the Court below in not numbering and accepting the Vakalath filed by the Plaintiffs through their counsel in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. lANO; 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 pleased to dispense with the filing of the Original Vakalath on behalf of Petitioners/Plaintiffs, filed in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 3 f HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2375/2025 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the Court below in not numbering and accepting the vakalath filed by the petitioners/pl aintiffs through their counsel in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.32 of 2021. For better 2. understanding the petitioners are hereinafter referred as plaintiffs. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that pending the suit, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on record before the trial Court is not properly pursuing the suit. Then the plaintiffs approached him and requested to give NOC to engage another counsel. But, the counsel for the plaintiffs at the trial Court refused and not given NOC. He further submits that having no other option they engaged one Sri P.Balaji, Advocate who filed vakalath along with memo on 08.05.2025 to appear before the trial court on behalf of the plaintiffs. But the trial court did not receive the same and returned on the ground that there is no endorsement of NOC from the earlier counsel, even though the plaintiffs appeared before the trial and informed that they engaged the new counsel Sri Balaji. As such, the plaintiffs approached this Court. 4. 4 The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that it is the right of the 5. parties to change an advocate and that the advocate has no lean on the litigation papers of his client. He further relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.D.Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma\ New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A.K.Saxena^ and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High court in Sri C.V.Sudhindra & Ors. vs M/s Divine Light School for Blind & Ors\ 6. To examine the question raised, it is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in R.D.Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma (supra) (MFA No.6526/2013): “15. A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative. 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 AIR 2000 Sc 2912 AIR 2004 SC 311 ^ ILR 2008 KAR 3983 5 by him is paid, the situation perhaps may turn to dangerous proportion. There may be cases when a party has no resource 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 is yet to be paid. 18. Even if there is no lien on the litigation papers of his client an advocate is not without remedies to realise the fee which he is legitimately entitled to. But if he has a duty to return the files to his client on being discharged the litigant too has a right to have the files returned to him, more so when the remaining part of the lis has to be fought in the court. This right of the litigant is to be read as the corresponding counterpart of the professional duty of the advocate. 23. We, therefore, hold that the refusal to return the files to the client when he demanded the same amounted to misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. Hence, the appellant In the present case is liable to punishment for such misconduct. It Is true that an advocate is competent to settle the terms of his engagement and his fee by private agreement with his client but it is equally true that if such fee is not paid he has no right to retain the case papers and other documents belonging to his client. Like any other citizen, an advocate has a right to recover the fee or other amounts payable to him by the litigant by way of legal proceedings but subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by law or the rules made in that behalf 42. 6 7. In the context of the question raised, the following observations made by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Sri C.V.Sudhindra & Ors. vs M/s Divine Light School for Blind & Ors., are also apposite: "7. IVe are therefore of the considered opinion that the contract of vakalathnama can be withdrawn by the client at any time. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalathnama. Precisely the same right has been exercised by respondent No. 1 herein (defendant No. 7 in the suit) who had earlier engaged the petitioners on their behalf as Advocates to represent them if the Advocate feels that he has any genuine claim or grievance against his client, the appropriate course is to return the brief with endorsement of no objection and agitate such right in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law and not indulge in arm twisting methods by holding on to the brief" As could be seen from the observations made in the two decisions extracted above, the parties to the litigation have an absolute right to appoint an advocate of their choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. The parties have the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the parties should inform their advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate. 8. 8. 9. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, the parties may discharge their advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization. On discharging the advocate, the parties have the right to have the case file returned to them from 7 the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In any proceeding, including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing restriction on the said right can't be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate. As observed in the decisions referred to above, if an Advocate is 10. discharged by his client and if he has any genuine claim against his clients relating to the fee payable to him, the appropriate course for him is to return the brief and to agitate his claim in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law. As stated above, under no circumstance, the parties can be denied of 11. their right to appoint a new advocate of their choice. The right is absolute and unconditional. Hence, the objection raised by the trial Court on the vakalatnama is overruled. Further, the trial Court shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate. In view of the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the 12. Karnataka High Court, the plaintiffs are directed to resubmit the vakalat before 8 the trial Court within one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order by mentioning the decisions relied on herein and thereafter the trial Court shall pass an order on merits on the office objection within one (01) week thereafter. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2. One CC to Sri. Harinadh Nidamanuri Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer VR Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. Two CD Copies Mkp TAC HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 2375 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE CRP