Manmohan, J.

1. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks setting aside of Order dated 24th January, 2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge in C.S.(O.S.) No. 400 of 2003 being a suit for declaration and injunction.

2. The said suit was initially filed in this Court being C.S. (O.S.) No. 2136 of 2001, but stood transferred to the District Court, Delhi and thereon it was renumbered as C.S. (O.S.) No. 400 of 2003. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit while the respondent is the plaintiff. In the suit, trial has commenced and Rakesh Kumar, the Plaintiff and the alleged sole proprietor of M/s Daily Foods (India) as PW1 has tendered his evidence being Examination in Chief.

3. On 24th January, 2007 the suit was listed for cross-examination of Rakesh Kumar PW1. On that day, the counsel for the petitioner, in whose favour the petitioner had signed and executed the Vakalatnama, gave an authority letter to one Mr. A.K. Sahu, Advocate authorizing him thereunder to appear, argue and cross examine the witness on his behalf. A copy of the said authorization letter is filed as Annexure-G to the petition. Accordingly, on 24th January, 2007 the said Mr. A,K. Sahu, Advocate duly appeared before the court.

4. However, learned ADJ, by virtue of the impugned order dated 24th January, 2007 did not recognise the said authority letter on the premise that neither the Advocates Act nor the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) recognises nor permits any such authority and as such the learned ADJ did not permit Mr. A.K. Sahu, Advocate to cross examine the respondent/plaintiffs witness being PW1. On such a finding the respondent closed his evidence in the suit and thereafter the learned ADJ listed the suit for petitioners evidence by way of affidavit and adjourned the suit for the said purpose.

5. It is petitioners Counsels submission that once an advocate has been authorized by a Counsel holding a Vakalatnama from the client he ought to have been permitted to cross examine the witness. The right to cross examine ought not to have been closed. The counsel relied upon Order 3, Rule 4 of the CPC. The same reads as follows:

[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 Ms recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment-

.(5) No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in Court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating:

.(a) the names of the parties to the suit,

.(b) the name of the party for whom he appears, and

.(c) the name of the person by whom he is authorized to appear:

Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party.]

6. He submitted that from the above provision it was clear that the CPC itself provides that one pleader can be permitted by another Pleader duly authorized by the party to plead the case and further the right to cross examine is part of the right to plead before a Court. Reliance was also placed on the format of a Vakalatnama contained in the CPC in Form - 19. The relevant extract of Form-19 is set out hereunder:

Vakalatnama - "advocate is hereby appointed as counsel to appear, plead and act on behalf of the undersigned, in any manner, he thinks it proper, either himself or through any other advocate" and in particular to do the following namely:

To receive any process of court (including any notice from any appellate or revisional court) to file any applications, petitioners or pleadings, to file, produce or receive back any documents, to withdrawn or compromise the proceedings, to refer to any m