The petitioner is a Lawyer by profession; who is stated as aggrieved of Exhibit P1 notice issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby it has been stipulated that in all cases, the litigants and their counsel have to appear before the 3rd respondent for executing and attesting the vakalath and petitions or sanction to engage a lawyer. The above prescription is stated as in clear contravention of Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and also Rule 5(1) of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, which hence is sought to be set aside by this Court.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the first respondent as well. The issue involved being purely a ‘question of law’, no ‘question of fact’ is to be rebutted by filing any counter affidavit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the party concerned is at liberty to engage any lawyer of his/her choice, by executing a vakalath, which has to be done under the Civil/Criminal Rules or Practice. It is also a settled position of law that the ‘accepting lawyer’ is not supposed to attest the vakalath; which in turn has to be done by another lawyer, as held by this Court in Achuthan vs. Family Court (2000 (3) KLT 951). Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Moideen Bava vs. Shahida (2006 (3) KLT 763) in support of the contentions raised with regard to the incidental aspects.

4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 7.7.2011, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to call for a Report from the Family Court, Ernakulam, on the allegations. Pursuant to this, Report dated 13.7.2011 has been submitted by the learned Judge of the Family Court, along with a covering letter bearing No.3016/2011 dated 13.7.2011. As per the said Report, the learned Judge has made it clear that direction or order for issuance of any such notice like Exhibit P1 was ever issued and hence an explanation was called for from the 3rd respondent/Sheristadar. The 3rd respondent explained that, Exhibit P1 notice was issued following the practice in similar Family Courts, insisting the parties to present the ‘sanction petition’ (for engaging a Lawyer) in person, to make sure that the ‘party in person’ was actually filing the petition. As per the practice, it is stated, that the parties are asked to subscribe their signature on the docket of the ‘sanction petition’ in presence of the Sheristadar and that, this is only to ensure the genuineness of the request. It is also stated in the Report that, while issuing Exhibit P1 notice the word “vakalath” happened to be included by way of mistake, which actually was not intended, as clarified by 3rd respondent, who submitted the explanation dated 12.7.2007 in this regard. A copy of the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent has also been forwarded by the learned Judge.

5. On going through the contents of the Report as afore said, it is sent hat the learned Judge of the Family Court, on coming across the mistake, has already given a direction for removal of the notice and it has been removed accordingly. As it stands so, the petitioner need not feel aggrieved of any probable consequence forming the basis for the prayers 1 and 2 in the writ petition. But it is stated that Exhibit P1 notice happened to be issued as a matter of ‘practice’ followed in other Family Courts as well. It is settled law that a wrong practice cannot set a good precedent, howsoever long it might be, especially when it is contrary to the statutory prescription.

6. Coming to the question of law raised in the writ petition, as to the manner of execution and authenticity of the Vakalath, reference is necessary to Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which is almost similarly worded as Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Rule 27 reads as follows:

“27. Form and attestation of vakalath.