A GPA holder cannot represent a party as a 'party-in-person' before the High Court; the right to appear on behalf of others is reserved for enrolled advocates, subject to the court's discretion under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025/ANNEXURE A/ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, WHICH IS DEVOID THE MERITS OF WRIT PETITION NO.105044/2021 (GM-CPC) AND SET ASIDE THE ABSURD ORDER PASSED IN ORDER SHEET DATED 6.02.2021 OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HARAPANAHALLI IN C.MISC NO.9/2013 (APPLICATION U/O 39 RULE 2A) WHICH IS AGAINST MEMO/ANNEXURE R AND ANNEXURE-J, J1 & M IN FILE OF W.P.NO.105044/2021 & ETC.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,

S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

The appellants, represented by their GPA holder and father Sri. D. Venkanagouda S/o Rudragouda, are in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, questioning the order dated 23.1.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.105044/2021, holding that the father of the petitioners/appellants cannot be allowed to appear as party-in-person.

We have not gone into the maintainability of the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the above stated writ petition relating to GM-CPC i.e. questioning interlocutory order passed in C.Misc.No.9/2013 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard Sri. D. Venkanagouda, GPA Holder, only on the question of GPA Holder representing the appellants as party-in-person.

The appellants/petitioners filed WP No.105044/2021 questioning the order dated 6.2.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli in C.Misc.No.9/2013 dismissing the petition against respondent No.2 and for other reliefs. The petitioners were represented by their GPA holder and father. General Power Attorney dated 18.10.2011 is placed on record as Annexure-Q, which indicates that the power has been conferred upon GPA holder to appear and conduct the case on behalf of the petitioners including to depose, to defend, to file, to compound, to engage an advocate etc. However, the learned Single Judge by interim order dated 1.6.2022 refused the audience to PA holder observing that only a party to the proceedings is permitted to appear as party-in-person subject to fulfilling the requirements of the High Court of Karnataka (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-In-Person) Rules, 2018, For short ‘Rules, 2018’. GPA Holder filed IA No.1/2022 to review the order dated 1.6.2022. However, the said IA No.1/2022 to review the order dated 1.6.2022 also came to be dismissed on 24.6.2022. But the petitioners failed to engage an advocate to represent them before the Court. Thereafter, when the writ petition came up for orders on 23.1.2025, despite giving sufficient opportunity to the GPA holder to engage the services of any counsel or to avail the services of Legal Services Authority, the same was refused by the GPA holder. The learned Single Judge, observing that the father of the petitioners cannot be allowed to appear as party-in-person, dismissed the petition, against which, the petitioners are in appeal, again represented by their GPA holder.

Having heard the GPA holder on the question as to whether GPA holder could represent the petitioners as party-in-person, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge would not suffer from any error or illegality and no ground is made out to interfere with the same.

As a matter of right, party-in-person cannot appear before the Court in terms of Rules, 2018. Party-in-person shall have to obtain Certificate to appear as party-in-person. Rules, 2018 defines “party-in-person”, which reads as under:

“Party-in-person means and includes a person, who intends to plead, appear and argue his or her own case before the High Court, not through an Advocate subject to these rules may include a next friend in specif