HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CHAGLA, J.
Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel
Versus
National Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Civil Revn. Appln. No.1313 of 1952; from decision of Civil J. Jr. Division, Kalyan in Regular Suit No.507 of 1950.
Decided On : 01-10-1954
RIGHT OF AUDIENCE - POWER OF ATTORNEY - O. III, R.1, C.P.C. - S.8, BAR COUNCILS ACT - S.9, BOMBAY PLEADERS ACT - A recognized agent with a general power-of-attorney has no right of audience in Court on behalf of the party.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner gave a general power-of-attorney to one Shambhuprasad in a civil revision application. When the application came up before the court, Shambhuprasad wanted to address the court on behalf of his client. The question arose whether a constituted attorney has the right of audience in the court on behalf of the party.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a recognized agent with a general power-of-attorney has no right of audience in Court on behalf of the party. The right of audience is a natural and necessary concomitant of the right to plead, and therefore if a recognized agent has no right to plead, it follows that he has no right of audience in Court.
Issues: Whether a recognized agent with a general power-of-attorney has the right of audience in Court on behalf of the party.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. O. III, R.1, C.P.C. merely deals with an appearance, application or act in or to any Court and such an appearance, application or act may be done (1) by the party in person, (2) by his recognized agent, and (3) by a pleader. It does not deal with the right of audience in Court, the right to address the Court, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, which are all parts of pleading. 2. Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court provides that no person whatsoever but such advocates, vakils or attorneys shall be allowed to act or to plead for or on behalf of any suitor in the said High Court, except that any suitor shall be allowed to appear, plead or act on his own behalf or on behalf of a co-suitor. 3. S.8 of the Bar Councils Act provides that no person shall be entitled as of right to practice in any High Court unless his name is entered in the Roll of Advocates of the High Court maintained under this Act. The right to practice includes both pleading and acting. 4. S.9 of the Bombay Pleaders Act provides that no person shall appear, plead or act for any party in any civil proceeding in any Court unless he is a pleader as defined in the Act and is duly empowered to appear, plead and act for such party in such proceeding. The proviso to S.9 makes a distinction between appearing, pleading or acting and appearing or acting. Whereas a party may not only appear or act but he may also plead, a recognized agent as defined in R.2, O. III can only appear or act and not plead.
Final Decision: The court held that Shambhuprasad, the recognized agent with a general power-of-attorney, had no right of audience in the court on behalf of the petitioner.
ORDER : - A question of very great importance to the Bar has been raised by Mr. Bengeri on this petition. The petitioner gave a general power-of-attorney to one Shambhuprasad in a civil revision application and when the application came up before me this Shambhuprasad wanted to address me in Court on behalf of his client, and the question that arises is whether a constituted attorney has the right of audience in this Court on behalf of the party.
2. Mr. Bengeri relies on the provisions of O. III, R.1. Order III deals with recognised agents and pleaders and r.1 thereof provides that
"Any appearance, application or act in or to any court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf."
It is to be noted that this rule merely deals with an appearance, application or act in or to any Court and such an appearance, application or act may be done (1) by the party in person, (2) by his recognized agent, and (3) by a pleader. It should also be noted that this rule does not apply where a law for the time being in force otherwise expressly provides. Therefore it would be competent for a law for the time being in force to provide in respect of recognized agents and pleaders differently from what is provided under O. III, R.1. Then R.2 defines recognised agents and under cl. (a) persons holding powers of attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties, are considered as recognised agents. Order III, R.2(a), has been amended by our High Court and the amended rule requires that a recognised agent must hold a general power of attorney in order that he should be entitled to act under O. III. An exception is made in the case of an attorney of the High Court or an advocate in whose case a general power-of-attorney is not necessary, but a special power of attorney would do.
3. The contention put forward by Mr. Bengeri before me is that "pleading" is included in the expression "appearance, application or act in or to any Court." In my opinion it is clear that "pleading" would not be included in any of these expressions. The right of audience in Court, the right to address the Court, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, are all parts of pleading with which O. III does not deal at all. It deals with restricted class of acts in connection with the litigation in Court and it is with regard to that restricted class of act that O. III permits recognized agents to be appointed. If authority was needed for this proposition, there is ample authority. There is the decision of the full bench of the Madras High Court in - Krishnammal v. Balasubramania Pillai, AIR 1937 Mad 937 (FB) (A), and there are also two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in - Harchand Ray Gobordhon Das v. B.N. Rly. Co., AIR 1916 Cal 181 (1) (B) and In re: Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation Ltd., AIR 1934 Cal 563 (C). Both the Madras High Court and the Calcutta High Court held that an agent with a power-of-attorney has no right of audience in Court. Mt. Bengeri has drawn my attention to a recent decision of the East Punjab in - G.G. in Council v. Bhagwan Sahai, AIR 1948 EP 61 (D). There the learned Judge Mr. Justice Teja Singh took the view that a recognised agent had the right on behalf of the party to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The learned Judge conceded that pleading was quite different from acting and that O. III did not deal with pleading. But he took the view that examining and cross-examining witnesses was part of acting and not part of pleading. With respect, I find myself unable to agree with the learned Judge. But as far as the right of audience is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is a part of pleading and not a part of ac
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.