JUDGMENT :

This writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner No.39 for challenging the order dated 16th September 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge on I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2019. The learned Single Judge held that the applications were not maintainable as the applications were filed by an advocate representing the petitioner No.39 who filed vakalath without obtaining ‘No Objection’ from the advocate who was earlier representing the petitioner No.39 (the appellant).

2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that a General Power of Attorney was executed by the appellant constituting one Shri C.P. Tayal as his attorney. In the writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge, the said constituted attorney acted on behalf of the appellant and it was the constituted attorney who had appointed an advocate to represent the appellant. The submission of the appellant is that the General Power of Attorney was terminated on 5th August 2019 and a public notice of the termination was published. The submission in short is that as the advocate who was earlier appointed to represent the appellant was appointed by the General Power of Attorney holder, another advocate is entitled to appear for the appellant.

3. We have carefully considered the submissions. As far as the appointment of an advocate is concerned, the same is governed by Rule 4 of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the said Code’). Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of Order III of the said Code read thus:

“Appointment of pleader — (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment.

(2) Every such appointment shall be filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing singed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.”

(underline supplied)

4. The principle laid down is very clear. Once an appointment of the advocate is filed in the Court by filing the vakalath, the same continues to be in force until determined with the express leave of the Court. The leave of the Court can be granted on the basis of a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in the Court. Unless the authority of the advocate who has filed vakalath is determined with the leave of the Court in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Code, the same continues to be in force until the proceeding in which vakalath is filed comes to an end.

5. In the present case, the appellant’s constituted attorney appointed an advocate when admittedly the General Power of Attorney was valid and binding on the present appellant. By appointing an advocate, the constituted attorney of the appellant acted on behalf of the appellant when the power of attorney was valid. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order III expressly permits a constituted Attorney to appoint an advocate. The acts done by the constituted attorney in the proceedings of the writ petition when the General Power of Attorney was valid and binding on the appellant will continue to bind the appellant. Therefore, the appointment of an advocate made by the appellant’s constituted attorney is for all purposes the appointment made by the appellant himself. Thus, the appointment of the advocate made by the constituted attorney of the appellant will continue to be valid and in force until determined with the leave of the Court as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order III of the said Code.

6. A reference will have to be made to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13th February 2019 in Regular First Appeal No.