The main legal point established is the necessity of a separate vakkalath for legal representation in the High Court, as governed by Order III, R.4 (2) CPC, the Advocates Act, 1961, and the High Court Rules.

1. When the above appeal was presented by the counsel for the appellant, who had appeared for the appellant in the court below also, without a vakkalath being filed in this court (a memo of appearance was filed subsequently when the appeal was represented on 16 1977), the appeal memo with the other papers presented, was returned by the High Court office with the remarks that under the rules a vakkalath is necessary. The counsel, however, re-submitted the papers pointing out (hat the appeal was really presented by the advocate appearing already in the case as will be indicated by the judgment and decree of the court below and that the view that a fresh vakkalath is necessary for each stage of the suit or change of court does not seem to be correct. It was also submitted that an advocate's appointment shall be deemed to be in force until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client and not the court as per Order III, R.4 (2) CPC, and by the express Explanation (c) to the Rule added by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 (No. 104 of 1976). He placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Garipathi v. Subbiah Choudhry (AIR. 1957 SC. 540 para 23) that suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic unity are to be regarded as one legal proceeding As the office was not - the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, the matter was directed to be placed before court. That is how the question has come up before me.

2. When the matter was heard by me on 17 61977, I though it will be useful to have the vakkalath filed by the counsel in the court below sent for It was accordingly called forth and placed before me. I need only state here that there is no specific clause therein which directs the counsel to appear for the client in the appellate forum also.

3. R.4 of Order III provides that 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 recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment. Every such appointment shall be filed in court and also shall 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 pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. In the Explanation incorporated in the rule, by the Amendment Act, 1976, clause (c) of the same provides that any appeal from any decree or order in the suit, shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit. This Rule, according to the counsel for the appellant, clearly indicates (and the doubts, if any in the matter wiped out by the Explanation (c) aforesaid pointed out) that the counsel appointed by the party in the court below, could continue to act for the party in the appellate court also on the basis of the appointment in the court below. Fresh vakkalath in the appellate court cannot be insisted upon. He also placed reliance on the well settled principle that the counsel shall have all the necessary implied powers consequent on his appointment as the party's counsel for the purpose of acting in a proper manner in the interest of his client. The absence of any specific mention of an authorisation to act for the party in the appellate court will not matter, especially because his appointment is to continue and shall be in force until all the proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client unless the vakkalath is otherwise determined by revocation, resignation or death.

4. Reliance was placed by the counsel on the decision of the Patna High Court in Laurentius Ekka v. Dukhi Koeri (AIR. 1926 Patna 73), where it was pointed out that so far as the law and the rules are concerned there is nothing to prevent an advocate e