Change of counsel by party and filing of fresh vakalatnama by newly engaged counsel when permissible?

In Smt. Champa Devi vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, 1992 (2) ARC 634 (All),  a civil appeal which was dismissed by the court under Order 41, Rule 17 of the CPC and thereafter restoration application under Order 41, rule 19 of the CPC was moved, explaining rule 39 of Chapter II in part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, it has been held that so far as the courts are concerned it is not open to a party to determine the appointment of a counsel without permission of the Court. It is not open to a client to withdraw the file of the case from his counsel without permission of the Court as required under Order 3, Rule 4 and ordinarily a Counsel cannot withdraw from the case, on his being engaged without leave of the
Court so far as the case is concerned, as if a party is deemed to be entitled to change Counsels one after other at his sweet will and take away from the file of the case from one Counsel without determining his appointment according to requirement of the rule and engage other and thereafter engages a third Counsel after taking the file of the second Counsel without consent in writing of the Counsel after taking the file of the second Counsel without consent in writing of the Counsel already on record of the case and without permission of the Court, disastrous consequences may ensue and follow. 

As such, it is not open to a party to subterfuge another Counsel before determining the appointment of the earlier one in accordance with law as provided under Order 3, Rule 4, except in the cases or in the circumstances provided by the modifying the rules or immediate appointment of the second Counsel with the consent writing of the Counsel already on record.Rule 39 of Bar Council of India Rules, per se shows as a rule of conduct on the part of Advocate and it imposes an obligation on Advocate that in cases or in any case where there is already an Advocate engaged by a party and vakalatnama has already been filed, no Advocate shall appear for that party except with the consent of the Advocate already on the record of the case and a reading of the rules indicates that as consent has to be produced before the Court, it means the consent should be in writing and if for some reasons or other the consent cannot be produced then the second Counsel put in appearance, in the case, with application for permission in which he shall state the reasons as to why he is unable to produce the consent and will seek the permission of the Court for appearing in that case.  

The law and spirit of this rule of conduct on the part of Advocate also emphasize and indicates its purposes, which is two-fold, namely, firstly, that keeping pace with the position of an Advocate, it is necessary that in order to maintain certain norms of lis and ethics of profession as well as to maintain their status and dignity, it should be provided that they should not themselves to make their own-selves or their colleagues, a subject matter or a tool or a thing in the hands of litigants or touts or like persons to be changed every now and then according to the whims of the litigants or control over them of unwanted touts or like persons on one hand and the rule casts a duty on them that the Counsel should not accept a brief in which an Advocate is already there to represent the party who intends to engage him and should not put in appearance for a party who has already been filed on the record of the case unless and until the Counsel already on record given his consent in writing or in some special circumstances and cases where consents have not been obtained or could not be obtained and produced before the Court, requires the Counsels, narrating those circumstances and reasons why the consent could not be obtained move application for permission and then the Court having the power in such a case to grant permission to the second Counsel to appear grants the permission after considering those circumstances justifying the grant of permission. 

The second object of the rule is to maintain certainly of representation of a party in the case by a specifically appointed Counsel and, thirdly, as far as possible not to allow the parties litigants to abuse such a situation and to make it (sic) of and cause for obtaining adjournments which might otherwise be refused.