JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of two orders passed in the same suit. APOT/68/2026 is directed against the order dated March 9, 2026 passed in IA No.GA/6/2025; whereas, APOT/69/2026 is directed against the order dated March 9, 2026 passed in IA No.GA/7/2025.

2. Appeals are at the behest of plaintiffs Nos. 1(a) to 1(d). There are four appellants. They are not represented by any Advocate.

3. Plaintiff no.1(d) appears in person. He claims that he possesses power of attorney to represent the other three plaintiffs/appellants.

4. We perused the memorandum of appeal in both the appeals. We find that, the memorandum of appeal in both of the appeals speaks of appeal being preferred by the plaintiff 1(d). Memoranda of appeal are, therefore, not by all the four appellants, but is limited to the appellant no.4 only.

5. Stay petition is affirmed by the plaintiff 1(d). He claims that he is the appellant No. 4 of the present appeals. He claims that affidavit of competency was filed earlier.

6. Again, from the affidavit verifying the stay petition it does not appear that the appeals are at the behest of the four appellants rather it is limited to only one appellant.

7. We take into consideration the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 2001 Guj. 279 (Jaymal Thankore vs. Gujarat State Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Ors.). There the Gujarat High Court dealt with the right of a chartered accountant to represent a litigant in a Court of law on the basis of the power of attorney. It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 12 to 16 thereof which are as follows:

“12. Having thus considered the nature of proceedings before the Charity Commissioner and the procedure of Code of Civil Procedure that he has to follow in taking a decision in the matter of framing of a scheme of management under Section 50A, the right of parties and their agents to participate in the proceedings before him have to be examined. As has been pointed out above, the Civil Procedure Code is applicable in the proceedings 'before the Charity Commissioner for recording evidence and for allowing appearance of the parties. The provisions of Order III, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. allow appearances, filing of applications and acts by the parties, by their recognised agents and pleaders in the manner laid down therein. Order III, Rule 1 uses three different expressions having three different connotations, i.e. "party in person", "recognised agent" and "pleader". The relevant provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 read as under :-

"RECOGNIZED AGENTS AND PLEADERS

1. Appearances, etc. may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader :- Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized 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.

2. Recognized agents :- The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are :-

(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;

(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts."

13. What is to be noticed from the provisions of Rule 1 of Order III quoted above is that the appearances, applications or acts in the Court are to be done by the party in person or by h