A Court has the discretion to grant permission to a non-Advocate to appear and plead on behalf of a party, considering factors such as the antecedents, relationship, and reasons for requesting the services of the private person. However, permission may be denied if the Court finds that the involvement of the non-Advocate would lead to abuse of process of Court or hinder the judicial process.

Applicants 1 to 4 who are plaintiffs 2 to 5 in CS. 251/87 have filed this application under S.32 of the Advocates Act read with Order XIV, Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules, seeking permission for Mr. A.V. Raman a family friend and Power of Attorney Agent of the Plaintiffs, to appear and plead on their behalf in the suit, under the following circumstances :

2. Sethulakshmi, the sole respondent herein, is the second defendant in the suit. She filed O.S. No. 1681/67 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against one C.M. Balusamy, first plaintiff in the suit, for declaration of certain property described in 'B' Schedule to the plaint. She also asked for delivery of possession of portions of properties marked as red and green forming part of 'B' Schedule property and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed as prayed for and the appeal, AS. 7/75 filed by Balusamy was dismissed on 21-10-1975. The second appeal, SA. 510/76 preferred by him was also dismissed on 18-11-1977. Sethulakshmi filed EP. 259/78 on 24-1-78 to execute the decree. The legal representatives of the judgment-debtor, Balusamy, obstructed delivery of possession. Sethulakshmi filed EA. 3497/81 for removal of obstruction and the same was objected to by the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor viz. Vijaya Baluswamy and Thirunavukkarasu. Eventually, the objections were overruled and the petition was allowed on 19-2-1985. Against the said order C.M.A. 59/86 was filed by the aforesaid obstructors. They had also filed EA. 1023/83 under S.47, C.P.C., contending that O.S. 1681/67 was filed seeking recovery of possession of portions marked red and green measuring 12' x 10' and 12' x 8' and the measurement of 'B' Schedule in which the red and green marked portions form part, has been given fraudulently as 3 grounds 544 sq. ft. and that the court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for anything more than the prayer that is asked for. The obstructors also contended that the E.P. itself is barred by limitation. Sethulakshmi filed a counter in the C.M.A. and contended that the obstructors are abusing the process of Court, and that similar obstructions were raised earlier and dismissed by the Executing Court. One such application was EA. 2007/78 filed under S.47, C.P.C. and that was dismissed on 2-2-1980. They then filed EA.1475/80 and it was dismissed on 5-8-1980. Then E.A. 1023 of 1983 was filed and it was dismissed on 19-12-1985 on proper grounds. The obstructions preferred C.R.P. 1505/85. While disposing of C.R.P. 1505/85 and C.M.A. 59/86, M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J., in his common order dated 9-4-1986, had occasion to refer to an order dated 6-12-1983 passed by Mohan, J. in C.R.P. Nos. 3100, 3199, 3120, 3121 and 3122 of 1983 and CMA. 831/83, wherein all the facts of this case have been narrated and as to how application after application had been filed either by the judgment-debtor or by his legal representatives or by third parties, to prevent the decree-holder from executing the decree,and finally the learned Judge observed that the decree-holder is unable to reap the fruits of the decree in view of the attitude adopted not only by the petitioners before him but also by third parties. It was also brought to the notice of M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J., that the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor have filed O.S. 765/81 before the City Civil Court, Madras, to set aside the decree dated 30-7-74 obtained by Sethulakshmi in O.S. 1681 of 1967. With reference to the same, the learned Judge observed as follows :-

"A person, who has obtained a decree in 1974, after facing all sorts of litigations which have ended in second appeal, is still unable to get possession of the property on the several allegations raised by the petitioners herein. As stated already, the respondent (Sethulakshmi) has to again face a litigation in O.S. 765/81 which is pending before the City Civil Court, Madras. As stated already, the order of Mohan, J. dated 6-12-1983 gives a pictur