JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Both these writ petitions arise out of order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on 12-8-1996.

2.Heard Mr. C.R. Dalvi, the learned Counsel for petitioner in both the writ petitions.

3.Mr. Dalvi has raised two fold contentions : (i) that since Shri J.M. Chitale, Advocate, was appearing on behalf of the plaintiff to argue application Exhibit-5 having been engaged by Shri M.M. Mokashi, Advocate, who was duly appointed to act in the Court on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore no Vakalatnama or memo of appearance or authority was required to be filed by Shri J.M. Chitale, Advocate, and (ii) that there was no justification by the Court below in directing Shri Chitale, Advocate to produce his sanad since the same lawyer has been in the Court in Pune for more than 25 years.

4.I have considered the contentions raised by Mr. Dalvi and also perused the order dated 12-8-96 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune along with other material placed on record and provisions of Order 3, Rule 4(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant rules framed by the Bombay High Court in that connection.

5.Coming to the second contention raised by the learned Counsel first, it may be observed that a person who has obtained the requisite legal qualification is not entitled to audience in courts on that count alone. He must be admitted to the Bar before he could practice. Admission to the Bar is regulated by statute and presently by the Advocates Act and the rules framed thereunder. The right of petitioner Mr. Jayant Madhav Chitale to practice, is therefore what is conferred on him by way of Sanad by the Bar Council concerned. In law, the direction given by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, asking Shri J.M. Chitale, Advocate, to produce sanad therefore cannot be faulted if he wanted to verify whether Shri J.M. Chitale is duly enrolled with the Bar Council or not. The direction given by the said Court to Shri J.M. Chitale to produce the sanad could have been avoided being unnecessary but if the trial Court wanted to verify whether Shri J.M. Chitale, Advocate, was duly enrolled with the Bar Council or not, such direction cannot be interfered with in extra ordinary jurisdiction.

6.Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with recognised agents and pleaders. Rule 4 of Order III as amended by Bombay High Court w.e.f. 11-10-83 which deals with appointment of pleader reads thus :

"4. 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 authorised 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 signed 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.

Explanation :---For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,-

(a) an application for the review of decree or order in the suit,

(b) an application under section 144 or under section 152 of this Code, in relation to any decree or order made in the suit,

(c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and

(d) any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of moneys paid into the Court in connection with the suit.

(3) For the purposes of sub-rule (2) above, (i) an application or a proceeding of transfer under section 23, 24 or 25 of this Code, (ii) an application under Rule 9 or Rule 13 of Order IX of this Code, (iii) an application under Rule 4 of Order 38 of this Code. (iv) an application f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document