HON’BLE MR. KAMAL DE, PRESIDING MEMBER

Order No. : 02

Date : 06.04.2022

Parties are present through their respective Ld. Lawyers.

It appears from the record that summons have already been served upon OP 4 and accordingly revisionist is not to take step in respect of OP 4 as reflected order No. 3 dated 02.03.2022 of this Commission.

IA/13/2022 arising out of RP/4/2021 is taken up for hearing. Heard Ld. Lawyer for both sides and considered.

In filing the IA/13/2022 it is stated by the OP 1 that the instant RP/3/2021 is not maintainable as the petitioner – revisionist and OP 4, namely Sudipta Saha are represented by the self-same sole Ld. advocate, namely, Soni Ojha.

It appears that 2 rivision petitions being Nos. RP/3/2021 and RP/4/2021 have been filed by Subhayan Deb and OP 4 Sudipta Saha assailing one single order passed by the Ld. Forum Suiri, Birbhum vide order No. 6 dated 23.11.2021 by the self-same Advocate namely Soni Ojha and both the petitioners have been crossly impleaded as OP in both the revision cases.

At this juncture Ld. Lawyer on behalf of the petition Subhayan Deb in RP/4/2021 files a petition stating that he may be allowed to withdraw the RP Case No. 4/2021.

Seen Sec. 33 of Standard of Professional Conduct and Etiquette to be observed by advocate.

Sec. 33 enunciates “an advocate who has at any time advised in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other matter or has drawn pleadings or acted for a party shall not appear or plead for the OP”.

Under such circumstances, the prayer of the Subhayan Deb revisionist is allowed.

RP/4/2021 is not maintainable on technical ground as RP/3/2021 and RP/4/2021 have been filed by the self-same Lawyer, namely, Soni Ojha. The revision is withdrawn with liberty to file fresh revisional application, if so, advised in accordance to law by OP Subhayn Deb.

RP/4/2021 is withdrawn with leave to the revisionist to file fresh revision in accordance to law.

The instant IA/13/2022 is disposed of accordingly.