Dismissed

G. Jayachandra Raju v. P. Konda Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Sept 2024CRP/2498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order granting the change of counsel of the adhering law firm in a special leave execution petition. The Court held that while the trial Court did not err in principle by allowing the change on trust grounds, it failed to observe natural justice by not issuing notice before disengaging regular counsel.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 2498 of 2024 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

G. Jayachandra Raju Vs P. Konda Reddy — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2498 OF 2024

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2016 in EA No. 88 of 2016 in EP No. 42 of 2015 in LAOP No. 222 of 2000 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge Kadapa.

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. JAYACHANDRA RAJU, S/o Pitchi Raju, Aged 56 years, Occ Advocate, Resident of Near RTC Bus Station, Nellore, SPSR^Nellore District.

¶9

K. Sarath Kumar Raju, S/o Ramaraju, Aged 52 years, Occ Advocate, R/o Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

P. KONDA REDDY,, S/o Konda Reddy, Aged about 61 years, R/o D. No. A/31, Ibrahimpeta, H/o Penna Peruni Village, Rachagudipalli Post, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶13

The Special Dy. Collector,, Somasila Project, Unit - IV, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

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 I pleased to stay all further proceedings in EA No.^{88of2016inEPNo.42} of 2015 in LAOP No. 222 of 2000 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P SRIDHAR REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents ; SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA (R1)

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶21

C.R.

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present revision is filed against the order dated 15.12.2016 in E.A.No.88 of 2016 in E.P.No.42 of 2015 in LAOP.No.222 of 2000 passed by the IV Additional District Judge Kadapa. 2. The petitioners were the erstwhile counsel of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is the decree holder. In^theexecution proceedings, the Respondent No.1 filed E.A. No.88 of 2016 seeking for change of counsel and engaged Sri M.Sudhakar Naidu as counsel on his behalf to withdraw the compensation amount payable under the decree. In the affidavit filed in support^{ofE.A.No.88of} 2016, certain allegations were made against the petitioners. The Execution Court taking into consideration the affidavit of Respondent No.1, allowed the E.A. following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.S.Venkatasubramanian v. State Bank of India (AIR 1997 SC 2329)Hence, this revision.

¶24

¶25

Heard Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶26

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when certain allegations were made against the petitioners in E.A.No.88 of 2016, the trial Court before passing order^on that application should have put the petitioners on notice, rather than accepting the allegations and permitting change of^counsel. It was contended that impugned order passed on the allegations made. brought disrepute to the petitioners.

¶27

After examining the order of the trial Court, this^Courtisofthe opinion that the trial Court did not venture into any finding on the allegations, but had permitted change of counsel as certain allegations were made against the petitioners. The impugned order of the trial Court was more on account of loss of trust rather than on any finding on the allegations. A party to a litigation^{hasaninherent} right to change his counsel and none can insist for^{continuationas} counsel.

¶28

¶29

This Court however agrees with the contention of the petitioners counsel that before accepting the change of a regularly practicing counsel by the Court, the Court should put^himonshort notice before passing such orders. The regularly practicing^counsel should not be taken by surprise and be placed in an embarrassing situation that he has been dis-engaged.

¶30

With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

SD/- U.SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /y^ SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

The IV Addl. District Judge,Kadapa.

¶35

One CC to SRI. P SRIDHAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶36

One CC to SRI. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶37

One CC to Section Officer VR Section, (if any lower^courtrecords available)

¶38

THREE CD COPIES

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED:26/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.2498 of 2024

1 1) FEB 2125
O
Current Section
^SPATCV4^S^^

¶46

DISMISSING THE CRP

G. Jayachandra Raju v. P. Konda Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Jayachandra Raju v. P. Konda Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mupparaju Kuchelaiah Vs Kurra Sivannarayana

Perumalla Sekhar Vs Kovvuri Ammireddy(Original Dhr)

Vuriti Venkata Sivalingam Vs Surapaneni Venkataramaiah (Died) and 6 Others

M/S. Shriram Chits Private Limited Vs Yellani Sankara Rao

Smt K. Ramadevi, Nellore Dist Vs Vedicherla Kotaiah

G. Jayachandra Raju Vs P. Chinna Subba Reddy