High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : I.N.Modi
SAMDUKHAN - Appellant
Versus
MADANLAL - Respondent
Civil Misc. Appln. 177 Of 1958
Decided On : 09/03/1958
RIGHT TO APPEAR AND PLEAD IN COURT - RECOGNIZED AGENT - POWER OF ATTORNEY - C. P. C., ORDER 3, RULE 1 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDINANCE (NO. XV) OF 1949, SECTION 15 - INDIAN BAR COUNCILS ACT, 1926 (NO. 38 OF 1926), SECTION 8 - A recognized agent holding a general power of attorney cannot be permitted to plead in the High Court or any civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Samdukhan, filed an application in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1958, requesting that his recognized agent, Mr. Hafizullah, be permitted to plead before the High Court. The petitioner argued that Order 3, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C.) allows a party to appear, apply, or act through a recognized agent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the expression "any appearance, application or act" in Order 3, Rule 1 of the C. P. C. does not include pleading. The court also referred to Section 15 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance (No. XV) of 1949, which authorizes only advocates enrolled in the High Court to appear, plead, and act for suitors in the High Court.
Issues: Whether a recognized agent holding a general power of attorney can be permitted to plead in the High Court or any civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Order 3, Rule 1 of the C. P. C., Section 15 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance (No. XV) of 1949, and Section 8 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (No. 38 of 1926) to conclude that only advocates enrolled in the High Court have the right of audience and the right to plead in the High Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that his recognized agent, Mr. Hafizullah, cannot be permitted to plead in the High Court.
I. N. MODI, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application by Samdukhan appellant in S. B. Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 28 of 1958 praying that his recognised agent Mr. Hafi-zullah be permitted as a special case to plead before this Court, the main reason for the prayer being that the former is too poor to engage a counsel to argue his case. The application is an omnibus one and covers a similar request with respect to several other cases of the petitioner, which are not before me and to that extent it seems to me to be entirely misconceived. In deciding this application, therefore, I shall confine myself to the particular appeal which is before me.
( 2 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it may be mentioned that the particular attorney with respect to whom the present application has been made is a revenue agent, and it is pointed out that he has been practising before all the revenue Courts in this state. I may, however, state at once that that is a matter governed by separate rules with which I am not concerned in the present case, and, therefore, that circumstance has scarcely any relevance for the determination of the point that is raised before me. The point to decide is whether Mr. Hafizullah who is holding a general power of attorney for the petitioner can be permitted to plead in this Court or for that matter in any civil Court.
( 3 ) I have carefully considered this question with the attention which it deserves. The first provision of law which requires notice in this connection and upon which some reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner is Rule 1, of Order 3, C. P. C. That rule reads as follows :
"any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party in such Court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person. "
It is contended that the expression "any appearance, application or act" as used in the aforesaid rule embraces pleading also. This contention, to my mind. has no force, as the words "appearance" and "act" do not include "pleading. "
( 4 ) IN re, Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corpn. Ltd. AIR 1934 Cal 563, it was held that to plead is not to make or do an appearance or an application or an act, and, therefore, a recognized agent as such had no right of audience. In that case the right of audience was claimed on behalf of the company by one of its directors who held the power of attorney authorising him to appear for and on behalf of the company, to conduct and represent the company in various proceedings in Court, and it was held that he had no right of audience.
( 5 ) IN Jivan Lal v. Ram Ratan, AIR 1936 Oudh 261, it was again held that the words "any appear-ance, application or act" could not include pleading or arguing. It was, therefore, held that a recognized agent could not be allowed to plead and argue for his principal.
( 6 ) THE same view appears to have been taken in Thayarammal v. Kuppuswami naidu, AIR 1937 Mad 937 (FB) and also in A. S. Patel v. National Rayon Corpn. Ltd. , (S) AIR 1955 Bom 262.
( 7 ) I have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Order 3, Rule 1, C. P. C. cannot afford any support to the petitioner in the prayer made by him,
( 8 ) IT is well to remember in this connection that Section 15 of the Rajasthan High court Ordinance (No. XV) of 1949 has a direct bearing on the question before me. This section reads as follows :
"the High Court shall have power to approve, admit and enrol such and so many advocates as to the High Court may seem meet; and such advocates shall be and are hereby authorised to appear for the suitors of the High Court and to plead or to act or to plead and act, for the said suitors according as the High Cou
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.