ATUL CHUNDER MOOKERJEE Vs. SOSHI BHUSHAN MULLICK
LAWS(PVC)-1901-12-35
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on December 06,1901

ATUL CHUNDER MOOKERJEE Appellant
VERSUS
SOSHI BHUSHAN MULLICK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ameer Ali, J - (1.) This is an application on the part of the plaintiff for change of attorney. The application is resisted by the attorney on the record, on the ground that the order can be obtained only on the usual terms of paying the costs due to him, and that, so long as the attorney to whom the plaintiff proposes to entrust the conduct of the case does not pay the costs due to the attorney on the record, or give an undertaking for such payment, he should not be compelled to make over the papers in the suit.
(2.) The law relating to the question of an attorney's lien on papers held by him for his client is well settled. If the client himself discharges the solicitor, the latter is entitled to hold the papers till his costs are paid or a satisfactory undertaking given that such costs would be paid. But where the attorney discharges himself expressly or by implication, he has no Such right, and he has to make over the papers to the attorney, to whom the client proposes to go, retaining his lien on such papers. As early as the year 1837 the question was settled by the decision in Heslop V/s. Metcalfe (1837) 3 Myl. and Cr. 183.
(3.) There the same objection as is now raised was put forward before the Lord Chancellor, and the inconvenience and hardship to which the attorney would be exposed if, after embarking in a cause, ho was not provided with sufficient funds and the case was changed to other hands, were pointed out.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.