PANKAJKUMAR GHOSE Vs. SUDHEERKUMAR SHIKDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by an attorney named Pankajkumar Ghosh against an order of Lort- Williams, J., dated 18 November 1932, directing a change of attorney without payment of his costs. The circumstances under which that order came to be made, shortly stated, are as follows: It appears that this attorney was retained by one Sudheerkumar Shikdar, who is one of the defendants in Suit No. 1528 of 1926. The suit bad gone on for some time, in this sense that the suit had been pending for some time and had not been brought to a hearing, when an application was filed on 8 March 1932 for an order that Babu Pankajkumar Ghosh, attorney for the applicant Sudheerkumar Shikdar, be discharged from further acting as his attorney and that Babu P. L. Mitter, an attorney of this Court, be appointed in his place as attorney for the applicant in the suit and that the applicant be at liberty to file a warrant of attorney in favour of Babu P. L. Mitter to act for him in this suit.

(2.) Lort-Williams, J., made the order referred to above on 18 November 1932, but he did not provide in the said order for payment of the costs of the attorney up to the date of the order itself. The order, as made by Lort-Williams, J., appears on pp. 28 and 29 of the paper- book and it runs thus: It is ordered that the said defendant, Sudheerkumar Shikdar, be at liberty to discharge the said Mr. P. K. Ghosh from further acting as the attorney for the former in this suit and to appoint Mr. P. L. Mitter as his attorney in this suit. And it is further ordered that the said Mr. P. K. Ghosh shall have lien on the cause papers for the costs due to him in this suit from the said defendant Sudheerkumar Shikdar. And it is further ordered that the said defendant Sudheerkumar Shikdar do pay to the said Mr. P. K. Ghosh his costs of and incidental to this application including the fee to counsel to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court.

(3.) The attorney, feeling himself aggrieved by this order, has preferred this appeal and he urges that the practice of this Court has always been, where the attorney has not discharged himself by his own misconduct, not to order a change of attorney until and unless the costs incurred by the attorney up to the date of the order for change are paid by the client or by the new attorney proposed to be engaged. On the other hand, the respondent contends, first, that this is not an appealable order and, secondly, that the order as made by Lort-Wil-liams, J., is quite correct and that no case has been made out for our interference with the same. As regards the question whether this is an appealable order or not, both my learned brother and myself are satisfied that this is an appealable order. The rights of the at-torneys have been determined by this order. The attorneys rights having been determined by this order, that in itself is quite sufficient to entitle us to hold that this is an appealable order. Therefore having regard to the terms of Section 15, Letters Patent, nothing need further be said.