Counsel authorized by a signed Vakalatnama can withdraw a petition without the client's signature on the withdrawal memo, as per Order III Rule 4 of CPC.

ORDER :

(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.)

The Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking for withdrawal of the petition which reads as follows:

"It is submitted that after the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 28.09.2022, the 3rd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion from attendant to clerk-cum-Data entry operator by virtue of the resolution dated 19.09.2024. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent development in the above matter, the petitioner is withdrawing the present writ petition. Hence this memo may be taken on record and writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn in the interest of justice and equity."

2. However, the Registry has raised an office objection to the memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner which reads as hereunder:

"Reg: 1) Rectification of office objections raised in memo for withdrawal of WP filed by adv. for petitioner i.e., signature of the petitioner is not forthcoming in the memo."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K. Ravishankar submits that the office objection raised by the Registry would defeat the object and purpose of the duly signed 'Vakalatnama' by the parties authorising the advocates to appear and plead on behalf of the parties. It is further submitted that the Registry henceforth should refrain from raising such office objections.

4. Heard.

5. In terms of Order III Rule 4 of CPC,[Order III Rule 4 of CPC from Karnataka Amendment which are relevant reads as follows:

"4. (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 subscribed with his signature in his own hand by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment and the appointment has been accepted in writing by the pleader.

(2) Every such appointment shall be filed into Court. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, no such appointment shall be deemed to have been until its determination with the leave of the Court by a document subscribed with his signature in his own hand by the client or his recognised or authorised agent or by the pleader, as the case may be, and filed into Court; or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client."], a pleader is permitted to act on behalf of a person upon authorization through a signed document in writing. Once the counsel is authorised by a party to appear on behalf of him by executing a signed document viz., Vakalatnama, in terms of Order III Rule 4 of CPC, it empowers the counsel to conduct the case and take necessary steps to conduct the proceedings.

6. In the Vakalatnama filed by the counsel for petitioner, the relevant instructions reads as follows:

"I/We hereby authorize him/them on my/our behalf to enter into a compromise in the above matter, to execute any decree/order therein to appeal from any decree/order therein and to appeal to act to plead in such appeal in any preferred by any other party from any decree/other therein. I/We authorize him/them to withdraw the Appeal/ petition/any other proceedings at his/their discretion."

7. Accordingly, in light of the duly signed vakalatnama, the counsel for the petitioner was authorized to withdraw the petition.

8. It is pertinent to note the observations made by the Apex Court in Jagtar Singh v Pragat Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 586 wherein, it was held that the counsel for the parties are at liberty to make a statement on instruction from the party to withdraw the case. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court are as follows:

"2. Respondent 1, elder brother of the petitioner filed the suit for declaration against the petitioner and three brothers that the decree dated 4-5-1990 was null and void which was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur on 29-9-1993. The petitioner has filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur.