Another awesome judgment from Karnataka reiterating that when a client loses confidence and faith in his Advocate he can choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the case file.
Be that as it may, neither the trial Court in the present suit nor this Court in this petition would be required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations and counter allegations except to reckon the same to notice that the Advocates on record and their clients have been trading charges against each other, which alone is sufficient for a client to loose confidence and faith in the Advocate so as to choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the file. The very fact that the Advocate is clinging on to the file without initiating any other action which would have been open to them in law, if in fact the Trustees had acted contrary to the interest of the Trust would indicate that the contentions put forth before the trial Court was not bonafide, at least in so far as claiming a right to remain on record as saviours of the first respondent when the first respondent has been in existence from the year 1958 as indicated from their letterhead and have taken care of themselves.
Honourable Profession… hmmm
C.V. Sudhindra and Ors. Vs Divine Light School For Blind on 21 July, 2008
In fact as and when any such unfortunate situation arises, the learned Advocate who has been appearing for such a client, should on his own free will come forward to advise the client to take back the file and should express lack of interest to appear on their behalf. That is why, this profession is known as honourable profession.