An advocate enrolled in one state may practice in another state by complying with local rules regarding joint representation.

1. A short question involves for consideration in this petition as to whether an advocate enrolled in a different State can appear and conduct a case in the State of Chhattisgarh or not?

2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition are that this petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. His enrolment Number is U. P. 73/1448. Two of the accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005 (State through C.B.I. v. Amit Jogi and 30 others) pending in the Court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, engaged the petitioner to defend their case. The recording of the evidence in the trial commenced on 13-12-2005. On 13-12-2005, the petitioner appeared in the said Court and filed his memo of appearance. The said memo was also signed by Shri J. S. Rathore, Advocate, Gwalior and Shri R. K. Tiwari, a local advocate practicing at Raipur. The petitioner then conducted the trial till 29-12-2005 and no objection was raised regarding his appearance in the said case. It appears that thereafter on some dispute, the Sessions Judge asked the advocates to file fresh memo of appearance duly signed by the accused persons. It is stated in the petition that accordingly, the petitioner and his associates submitted a fresh memo of appearance before the Court. However, on the direction of the Court, an application for permission to conduct the trial was also made on behalf of the petitioner. The said application was dismissed on 30-12-2005 and ultimately the petitioner was not permitted to conduct the trial at Raipur Court on the ground that he is, enrolled as an advocate in Uttar Pradesh and is not enrolled in the State of Chhattisgarh and has not obtained permission from the Bar Association to appear in the State of C. G., therefore, he was not entitled to appear and conduct the said case in the said Court. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge took the support of a decision rendered in the matter of Wajid Hussain v. Secy. State Bar Council, M. P. 1993 (II) MPWN 220.

3. Section 14 of (The Indian) Bar Councils Act, 1926 (Act XXXVIII of 1926) reads as under :
14. Right of advocates to practice.
(1) An advocate shall be entitled as of right to practice-
(a) subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 9, in the High Court of which he is an advocate, and
(b) save as otherwise provided by sub-section (2) or by or under any other law for the time being in force in any other Court and before any other Tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence and
(c) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under the law for the time being in force entitled to practice.
(2) Where rules have been made by any High Court within the meaning of clause (24) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 or in the case of a High Court for which a Bar Council has been constituted under this Act, by such Bar Council under Section 15 regulating the condition subject to which advocates of other High Courts may be permitted to practice in the High Court such advocates shall not be entitled to practice therein otherwise than subject to such conditions.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or in any way affect the power of the High Court of judicature at Fort William in Bengal or of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to make rules determining the reasons who shall be entitled respectively to plead and to act in the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
This section provides that an advocate shall be entitled as of right to practice in any other Court and before any other Tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence and before any other authority subject to the rules made by any H