A recognised agent cannot examine and cross-examine witnesses on behalf of his principal before a court of law.

This is a revision application by the defendants.

2. The facts of the case are briefly stated as follows:-One Deoji son of Dhannaji Thakur filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Kannod. As the claim was resisted by the petitioners the trial of the case was proceeded with. The petitioners, who were defendants in the lower Court did not engage any pleader for conducting their case before the trial Court, but were represented by one Hiralal Dube who held an 'Am Mukhtyar Nama' from them.

3. On 19-2-1954 one Rajaramsingh was examined on commission at his residence by the plaintiff as his witness. The petitioners were absent at the time of his examination but their 'Mukhtyar' Hiralal Dube was present. He wanted to cross-examine the witness but the Commissioner who was of the opinion that the recognised agent had no right to cross-examine his witness told him to suggest questions in order that he may put them to the witness and elicit his replies. The 'Mukhtyar' however did not agree and the result was that the commission was closed and the commission-warrant was returned to the Court by the Commissioner.

4. On 20-2-1954 the defendants applied to the Court for issuing the commission again, contending that the Commissioner had wrongly refused to allow the 'Mukhtyar' to cross-examine the witness. The learned Civil Judge by his order upheld the view taken by the Commissioner but ordered the commission to be re-issued on defendants' depositing the commission fees. Aggrieved by this order the defendants have preferred this revision application.

5. Mr. Pande, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court had wrongly held that the 'Mukhtyar' could not be allowed to cross-examine the witness. The learned counsel submitted that by doing so the trial Court had exercised jurisdiction vested in it illegally or with material irregularity.

6. Dealing with the merits Mr. Pande urged that O.3, R.1, C.P. Code permitted a recognised agent "to appear, apply and to act" for his principal before any Court. The learned counsel submitted that the word "act" was wide enough to include examination of witnesses. To support his arguments, the learned counsel referred to the decision reported in - 'Governor General in Council v. Bhagwan Sahai', AIR 1948 EP 61 (A).

7. According to O.3, R.1, C.P. Code any appearance, application or act to be made by a party before a Court may be made by him in person or by a recognised agent or by pleader (appearing, applying or acting as the case may be) on his behalf. Recognised agent by whom such appearance, application or act may be done includes, in the language of O.3, R.2, a person holding a power of attorney authorising him to do such appearance, application or act on behalf of a party.

8. Under the terms of the 'Mukhtyar Nama', copy of which was filed at p.10, Part B of the trial Court's record, this Hiralal Dube is authorised to appear, apply and to conduct cases. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the words was intended to confer authority to act within the meaning of O.3, R.1, C.P. Code. The petitioner's 'Mukhtyar' Hiralal Dube was thus a recognised agent who could appear, apply and act before a Court of law on behalf of the petitioners provided he was authorised to do so.

9. The question which is of some general importance and which arises for consideration in this case is whether a recognised agent can examine and cross-examine witnesses on behalf of his principal before a court of law. In AIR 1948 EP 61 (A) it is held by Teja Singh J. that he can.

10. The scope of the authority and power of a recognised agent to work on behalf of a party in a court of law has been the subject matter of consideration in several decisions.

11. The first case bearing on this point is the decision of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in - 'Harchand Ray v. B.N. Rly. Co.', AIR 1916 Cal 181 (1) (B). In that case a person holding a power of att