Dismissed

G. Jayachandra Raju v. P. Chinna Subba Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Sept 2024CRP/2554/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order disengaging petitioners' counsel during execution proceedings. The court held that while petitioners have an inherent right to change counsel, the trial court failed to put the regular counsel on notice before disengaging them, but dismissed the revision on other grounds.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

G. Jayachandra Raju Vs P. Chinna Subba… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2554 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the^Orderdated 15.12.2016 in EA No. 85 of 2016 in EP No. 41 of 2015 in LAOP No. 221 of 2000 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge Kadapa.

¶8

Between:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

' AND^ r

¶13

1. P. Chinna Subba Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, Aged about 65 years, R/o D. No. 3/1-2, Venkatayapalli, Penna Peruru Village, Rachagudipalli Post, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District

¶14

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

...RESPONDENTS

••'ll

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 to stay all further proceedings in EA No. 85^{of2016inEPNo.41} of 2015 in LAOP No. 221 of 2000 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa and pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. P SRIDHAR REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶24

!lESq C.R.P(§f^.Nomm ofiSD

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present revision is filed against the order dated 15.12.2016 in E.A.No.85 of 2016 in E.P.No.41 of 2015 in LAOP.No.221 of 2000 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. The petitioners were the erstwhile counsel of the Respondent No.l. The Respondent No.1 is the decree holder. In the execution proceedings, the Respondent No.1 filed E.A. No.85 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 of E.A.No.85 of 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). Henoe, this revision.

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when certain allegations were made against the petitioners in E.A.No.85 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.

¶30

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.

'I'k

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO assistant registrar

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

¶42

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

¶43

One CC to Sri. P Sridhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

One CC to Sri. Karri Murali Krishna, Advocate [OPUC

¶45

Three CD Copies

vna

HIGH COURT

■- •»

(' -■ DATED:26/09/2024

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CRP.No.2554 of 2024

¶53

F
VS- 24 7AN 22'-■ j
CuiTeni Section ^
^°»i£g»PATCW60

¶54

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

G. Jayachandra Raju v. P. Chinna Subba Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Jayachandra Raju v. P. Chinna Subba 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

G. Jayachandra Raju Vs P. Konda Reddy

Smt K. Ramadevi, Nellore Dist Vs Vedicherla Kotaiah