SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(AP) 53

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BHIMASANKARAM, P.CHANDRA REDDY, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
IN RE KODANDA RAMASWAMI VARI DEVASTANAM - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 02-15-56

The form of vakalat to be filed in the High Court is governed by Rule 21 of the Appellate Side Rules, and vakalats filed in lower courts are not sufficient for appearance in the High Court.

Headnote:

APPELLATE PROCEDURE - VAKALAT - FORM - VAKALAT FILED IN LOWER COURT - WHETHER SUFFICIENT FOR APPEARANCE IN HIGH COURT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (V OF 1908), ORDER III, RULE 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT APPELLATE SIDE RULES, RULE 21 - ADHRA STATE ACT (XXX OF 1953), SECTION 32.

Fact of the Case:

The issue arose from two cases where advocates filed unstamped memoranda of appearance instead of vakalats in the High Court. The advocates argued that the vakalats filed in the lower courts should suffice for all further proceedings, including appeals and revisions, under Order III Rule 4 sub-rules (2) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the vakalats filed in the lower courts were not in conformity with the form prescribed by Rule 21 of the Appellate Side Rules of the Madras High Court, which governs the procedure on the appellate side of the High Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the vakalats filed in the lower courts were sufficient for appearance in the High Court. 2. Whether Order III Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code overrides the requirement of Rule 21 of the Appellate Side Rules as to the form of the vakalat to be presented in the High Court. 3. Whether the Appellate Side Rules of the Madras High Court continue to be in force after the formation of the Adhra High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order III Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for the appointment of a pleader and the duration of such appointment, while Rule 21 of the Appellate Side Rules prescribes the form of appointment to be filed in the High Court. These rules deal with distinct subjects and therefore there is no conflict between them. 2. Even if there were a conflict, Rule 21 prescribing a particular form of vakalat for the High Court must be deemed to have altered or modified the right claimed to have been conferred under Order III Rule 4 C.P.C. 3. Section 32 of the Adhra State Act confers on the Adhra High Court all the powers to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure as are exercisable by the High Court at Madras. Therefore, the Appellate Side Rules of the Madras High Court continue to be in force in the Adhra High Court, subject to necessary modifications.

Final Decision: The court directed that fresh vakalats in the form prescribed by Rule 21 of the Appellate Side Rules be filed in both cases.

( 1 ) THESE matters have bee directed to be posted before -a Bech by our leared brother Umamaheswaram, J. . U. S. R. No. 2829 of 1955 relates to ustamped memorada of appearace i the place of the usual vakalats filed by the leared Advocate for the respodets i a batch of civil revisio petitios. U. S. R. No. 7274 of 1955 is cocered with a similar ustamped memoradum of appearace filed by the advocate cocered i a, secod appeal preseted to this Court. The Office retured the papers i both the cases objectig that fresh appellate side vakalats duly stamped should be filed ad that the memorada of appearace would ot suffice. I each case, the leared advocates coteded that as they had filed vakalats i the proceedigs i the lower court out of which the civil revisio petitios ad the secod appeal arose, the vakalats so filed would eure for all further proceedigs, revisios or appeals arisig out of them uder Order III Rule 4 sub-rules (2) ad (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the office was ot satisfied with that cotetio, the matter was posted i the first istace before our leared brother for orders.

( 2 ) IT is to be observed at the outset that the procedure i this High Court o its appellate side is govered by the Rules of the High Court, Madras, appellate side by virtue of Sec. 32 of the Adhra State Act, to which a more detailed referece will be made later. Rule 21 of these rules, so far as it is material, is as follows:"no advocate or attorey of the High Court shall be etitled to act i ay civil case uless he filed vakalatamah the form appeded here to. The vakalatamah shall authorise the advocate or attorey to appear i the appeal, petitio or other proceedigs icludig all iterlocutory or miscellaeous proceedigs coected with or arisig out of the same matter ad also i appeals uder clause 15 of the Letters Patet and in applicatios for review ad for leave to appeal to His Majesty i Coucil. "the form appeded to the rule provides that the vakalat should authorise a advocate or a attorey to appear for the executa t i the appeal or petitio as the case may be ad to coduct ad prosecute (or defed) the same ad all proceedigs that may be take i respect of ay applicatio coected with the same or ay decree or order passed therei, including all applicatios for retur of documets or the receipt of ay moeys that may be payable i the said appeal or petitio ad also i applicatios for review i appeals uder clause 15 of the Letters Patet ad i applicatios for leave to appeal to His Majesty i Coucil (ow the Supreme Court ). It is admitted that the vakalats filed i the lower courts i these matters before us are ot coformity with the form prescribed by this rule. We may ote here that the form of vakalat i the subordiate courts is govered by rule 19 of the civil Rules of Practice which is i the followig terms :"every vakalat shall, uless otherwise ordered by the Court, be i Form No. is ad shall authorise, the pleader to appear i all executio ad miscellaeous proceedigs in the suit or matter subsequet to the fial decree or order passed therei. "this form No. 12 is substatially differet from the form of vakalat to be filed i the High Court. A vakalat i this form authorises a pleader retaied by the cliet to coduct ad prosecute (or defed) the suit, origial or miscellaeous petitio as the case may be ad all proceedigs that may be take in respect of ay applicatio for executio of ay decree or order passed therein. It also empowers him to appear i all miscellaeous proceedigs in the suit or matter till all decrees or orders are fully satisfied or adjusted ad to obtai the retur of documets ad draw ay moeys that may be payable to the cliet in the said suit or matter. It further authorises him to accept oh behalf of his cliet, service of otice of all or ay appeals or petitios filed in ay court of Appeal, Referece or Revisio with regard to the said suit or matter before the disposal of the same i the court in which the vakalat is filed. While it is admitted that these vakalats are not i






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top