( 1 ) THIS Revision Application under Sec. 115 C. P. C. , is at the instance of the Chief Executive Officer and Vice-Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board against the order dated 3-1-1993 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), jamnagar, whereby the learned Judge granted application Exh. 25 of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 85 of 1997 restricting Mr. S. P. Gusain, Dy. Collector in the Gujarat maritime Board (for short, the G. M. B. ) from making any submission before the said Court.

( 2 ) NECESSARY facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed Civil Suits in the Court of Second Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Jamnagar against the G. M. B. , for declaration and permanent injunction by which they have challenged the Record of Right Entry No. 2368 of Mortgage of Lands of village Keshia, Taluka Jodia, Dist. Jamnagar bearing survey No. 584, 405, 612, 281 owned by late Gandu Paba and Survey No. 523, 582, 559, 27 and 546 of village Keshia, Taluka Jodia, Dist. Jamnagar owned by late Mavji natha. They, inter alia, also challenged the execution of declaration bonds, security bonds and Agreement Deeds duly executed by their ancestors late Gandu Paba and late Mavji Natha before Executive Magistrate, Jamnagar and other competent authorities for having stood sureties to defendant No. 3, namely; Abdul Gani Ismail mandalia for Rs. 3,15,000. 00 given as loan for construction of Mechanised Vessel in favour of Government of Gujarat through the then Director of Ports, Gujarat State.

( 3 ) MR. S. P. Gusain, Dy. Collector and Senior Legal Advisor of G. M. B. , filed appearance in the said suit being Civil Suit No. 85 of 1997 after duly authorised by the Vice-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, G. M. B.

( 4 ) THE appearance of Mr. Gusain was objected by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff by way of filing Application Exh. 25 stating, inter alia, that Mr. S. P. Gusain who is working as Dy. Collector under the G. M. B. , is appointed as authorised person by the G. M. B. , but he has not filed any appearance memo as a Principle Officer as provided under Order 29 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is also stated that Rule 3 of Order 2 of the C. P. C. has been amended by the High Court of Gujarat. It is only the general power of attorney holder has right of appearance on behalf of G. M. B. According to the plaintiff, Mr. Gusain is neither holding any power of attorney nor he is holding any Sanad, from Gujarat Bar Council or from any other State and hence he has no right to plead on behalf of the G. M. B. and hence he may be restrained from pleading on behalf of G. M. B.

( 5 ) THE trial Court, relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court, in the case of A. S. Patel v. National Rayon Corporation, reported in AIR 1955 Bom 262, held that the expression "appearance" under Order 3 Rule 1 of C. P. C. , does not include the right of audience in Court. In view of this, the Court held that Mr. Gusain has no locus standi to plead on behalf of defendant No. 1-G. M. B.

( 6 ) I have heard Mr. Gusain. At the outset, to shorten the controversy, it is made clear by Mr. Gusain that he does not claim any legal right of audience or right of practice as he has not enrolled himself as an Advocate. His only say is that by virtue of his designation as Dy. Collector-cum-Sr. Legal Advisor in the G. M. B. , he has been authorised by the Vice-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, G. M. B. , to appear and represent G. M. B. , in particular cases only. He has been filing appearances in various Courts on behalf of G. M. B. , and has argued the matter only with prior permission of the concerned Court or authority or person in that particular case as provided under Sec. 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He has also furnished a list of cases shown at Annexure a wherein he has put in appearance and he has been given audience by various Courts right from the Supreme Court, down below to the court of Civil Judge (J. D. ). He has also referred to one of the decisions of the A