A private person may represent a party in court only with prior permission due to the professional restrictions on legal representation.

1. This petition has been filed praying to permit R. Ramarathanam, who is the Power of Attorney of S. Balasubramanian alias S. Babu, to appear on behalf of the said S. Balasubramanian alias S. Babu before this Court in L.P. No. 32 / B1 / CSR / 2002 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner would submit that he is the Power of Attorney and Legal Adviser of S. Balasubramaniyam @ S. Babu, who is A2 in CC No. 5661 of 2002 pending on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai; that he is appearing on behalf of the said S. Balasubramaniyam @ S. Babu in OS No. 2109/1995, OS No. 5389/1997, OS No. 3599/1999 and EP No. 205/2000 in the city Civil Court and also before this Court; that A2 is one of the Partners in M/s. Suriya Chandra Lorry Service, which is a registered firm and all the partners have engaged him as their Legal Adviser and Power of Attorney by way of registered General Power of Attorney Deed No. 1133/92 dated 23-10-1992 and Register No. 799/1996 dated 23-7-1996, which are still in force.

3. The petitioner would further submit that a complaint has been filed by one Karathey Mani his wife Mohanambal with the Inspector of Police, L and O, B1 North Beach Road Police Station in collusion with the police and some others, viz., N. Damodara Naicker, Magheswari and Jeeva, who are the accused in CC No. 3278 of 2001; that already a complaint had been filed against the said Karathey Mani and his wife Mohanambal for an offence punishable u / S.499, S.500 and S.506(ii) IPC, which was referred to the said police under S.156(3) CrPC by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, on 16-9-2002. But, till date, no proper investigation has been made to register the case, and therefore, notice was issued on 2-12-2002.

4. The petitioner would further submit that even though respondents 3 and 4 and the above said Damodara Naicker, Magheswari and Jeeva colluding with the local police, are creating troubles to the petitioner, no proper action has been taken against them by the Police. On such grounds, the petitioner would seek for the relief extracted supra.

5. During arguments, the power of attorney appearing in person on behalf of the petitioner seeking leave of this Court to permit him to appear on behalf of the petitioner viz. S. Balasubramaniyan @ S. Babu in L. P. No. 32 / B1 / CSR / 2002 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, would quote S.32 of the Advocates Act regarding 'power of Court to permit appearance in particular cases' which reads :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, any Court, authority or person may permit any person not enrolled as an Advocate under this Act to appear before it or him in any particular case."

6. Though the Section is in a generalised form giving power to permit any person not enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act , 1961 to appear before it in any particular case, still, it cannot be misconstrued that any individual without being enrolled as an Advocate can appear on behalf of others assuming himself the assignment or role of an Advocate on behalf of others, which is impermissible in law. However, it should be clarified that every individual has a right to defend the cause against himself and the summons issued to a party also provides for the same and this facility is afforded even for an Advocate to appear in his own cause as an individual and merely because a person is an Advocate, he is not precluded from defending him or others having common or joint interest.

7. The party in person appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission would also cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered i