ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard.
2. The complainant/appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint claiming compensation for deficiency in rendering legal services.
3. The brief facts are that the appellant/ complainant being landlord has filed Eviction Suit against the defaulting tenants. In Eviction Suit No. RCS No. 26/94 ex parte eviction decree was passed. But his Counsel the respondent withdrew his Vakalatnama without any prior intimation to the appellant. Consequently, Darkhast No. 31/1997 for execution was dismissed for default.
4. As has been noticed by the State Commission, Rule 12 of Section 11 of Chapter III of Advocates Act specifically provides as under:
An Advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from engagements, once accepted without sufficient cause and unless reasonable and sufficient notices is given to the client. Upon his withdrawal from the case, he shall refund such part of fee as has not been earned.
5. The State Commission found that O.P. / respondent sent not one but three notices to the complainant dated 2.8.1999, 27.9.1999 and 14.10.1999, indicating his intention to withdraw his appearance mainly on the ground that the proper instructions were not given to him. The appellant was further required to supply the relevant documents. Not only the complainant sought clarification from the respondent whether he desired to withdraw from engagements from one matter or from all the matters he had also not shown any keenness to retain the services of the respondent. Since receipt of these letters is not disputed and since professional fee has also not been paid, as was undisputedly mentioned in letter dated 14.10.1999, prior information of the respondent’s intention to withdraw from the case was already given by the respondent to the complainant. An Advocate who neither gets appropriate instructions, nor gets his fees and who is asked whether he wanted to withdraw from all cases or one case, indicating least interest in retaining him cannot be expected to continue. This provides sufficient cause for him to withdraw from the case after giving reasonably sufficient notice.
6. The respondent sent letter dated 14.10.1999, and moved an application for permission for withdrawal of appearance before the Civil Judge. The Court after satisfaction of prior intimation to the appellant allowed the respondent to withdraw his appearance. The Court adjourned the proceedings to 17.11.1999 to enable the complainant to make alternative arrangement. The complainant/appellant failed to make any alternative arrangement. He did file application for restoration of the execution application after dismissal for default but the said application was withdrawn by the complainant.
7. Besides, a complaint was filed by the appellant before the State Bar Council which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000. On appeal before the Apex Body of Lawyers, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India by its order dated 1.6.2004 dismissed the appeal with further cost of Rs. 2,500.
8. In the aforementioned circumstances, if the appellant failed to give instruction despite notices and the Court permitted withdrawal of the Counsel from the case after satisfying itself that the client had been duly informed, no deficiency in rendering legal services could be imputed against the respondent. Consequently, we do not find any force in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.