( 1 ) SINCE a short point is involved, with the consent of counsel for parties, we have taken up this appeal for final disposal at this stage itself. This appeal is directed against an order dated 14/2/2001 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the plaint in the suit. Briefly the facts are that plaintiffs are parties based in the United States of America. They filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts on account of infringement of copy right in this court. According to the plaintiffs they are engaged in the business of film production and have copy right in the films produced by them. Besides they claim to have copy right or licensee rights in films produced by others as such rights have been assigned to them. The defendant is a cable TV operator working in India. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendant without seeking permission of the plaintiffs is exhibiting or showing the films in which the copy right or the right to commercial exploitation belongs to the plaintiffs. Along with the suit the plaintiffs filed application for ad interim injunction and we are given to understand that an injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs was continuing to operate when the impugned order was passed.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the suit the defendant moved an application raising objection to the institution and conduct of the suit and prayed for rejection of the plaint. The ground on which rejection of the plaint was sought was that an advocate is not entitled to act in dual capacity, i. e. , as a constituted attorney of the plaintiffs as well as as an advocate to plead the case of the plaintiffs in court. According to the defendant in the present case, the counsel for the plaintiffs was functioning as a constituted attorney of the plaintiffs as well as their advocate. As per facts on record, all the plaintiffs being based in the USA appointed Ms. Dahlia Sen oberoi, advocate as a constituted attorney for purposes of this case through independent documents by way of power of attorney executed by each plaintiff in favour of the said ms. Oberoi. Ms. Oberoi in turn appointed Mr. Chander M. Lall, advocate as an advocate to conduct the case on behalf of plaintiffs. Mr. Chander M. Lail is an advocate and is the sole proprietor of M/s. Lall and Sethi. The allegation of the defendant is that Ms. Oberoi is an advocate working with m/s. Lall and Sethi and is thus a part of that firm. The said firm having been appointed as constituted attorney by the plaintiffs, it cannot represent the plaintiffs as advocate. In other words, the case is that since an advocate cannot act in a dual capacity, i. e. , constituted attorney of a client as well as his advocate, the present suit was liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge held by the impugned order that the plaintiffs are represented by a firm ,of lawyers known as Lall and Sethi. All the partners of the firm will, therefore, be deemed to be advocates in the case. Ms. Oberoi working in the said firm would be deemed to be an advocate of the plaintiffs. She having been also appointed as an constituted attorney by each of the plaintiffs, it follows that she as well as other advocates of Lall and Sethi including Mr. Chander M. Lall are working in a dual capacity, i. e. , as a client as well as as a lawyer. The learned Single Judge observed that if a firm of advocates is appointed as advocate by a suitor, none of the partners of the advocates firm can act as recognised agent in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the client. The practice followed by the firm of advocates in combining the two roles is opposed to law. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants first raised the argument that such an order could not be passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. Rule 11 of Order 7 enumerates the grounds on which a plaint in a suit can be rejected.

( 5 ) THE ground on which the