OBJECTION OF EXPERTS FOR APPEARANCE IN PERSON BY PARTY
Guest
(Querist) 09 February 2011
This query is : Resolved
A QUERY WAS POSTED BY POOJA DHIMAN ON THIS SITE UNDER THE HEADING
"sincere efforts by experts for a querist and abuse by other"
AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION MR. ARUN BHAGAT, WHO I PRESUME, MAY BE A LAWYER, HAS PLACED A COMMENT THAT,
" You showed your sense by personally appearing in Court byepassing Learned Advocates and losing the case. Only the Advocates are called with prefix "Learned" thereafter the judges. SO Advocates are learned not you."
I HAVE VERY STRONG OBJECTION TO THAT,AS LAW NOWHERE RESTRICTS A CITIZEN OF INDIA FROM APPEARING IN PERSON BEFORE COURTS OF LAW AND EACH & EVERY PERSON IS FREE TO LITIGATE IN PERSON.
MOREOVER THIS PROFESSION IS NOT A KIND OF MEDICAL FIELD, WHERE ONLY AN EXPERT DOCTOR CAN OPERATE A PATIENT AND IF A PERSON UNDERSTANDS THE NICETIES OF LAW AND IS COMPETENT TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS EVEN ON THE PAPER, HE CAN FIGHT FOR HIS RIGHT IN PERSON AS DONE BY BHAGAT SINGH BEFORE THE BRITISH COURT, WHOSE PROCEDURES WE ARE COPYING TODAY ALSO AND TODAY AS DONE BY POOJA DHIMAN ALSO.BOTH LOST THEIR CASES BY THE SAME "CAUSE".WHAT BRITISH DID AT THAT TIME, THE SAME IS DONE BY INDIAN JUDICIARY IN HER CASE NOW.
MERELY LOSING A CASE IS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF APPEARING IN PERSON.
DOES ENGAGEMENT OF A LAWYER GUARANTEES A CASE TO BE WON?
DO EVERY ADVOCATE WIN HIS CASE?
ONE WINS AND OTHER LOSES.
THEN HOW CAN MR. BHAGAT BLAME MS. POOJA FOR LOSING HER CASE DUE TO HER APPEARANCE IN PERSON?
FURTHER,
"LEARNED" IS NOT A TITLE CONFINED ONLY TO ADVOCATES BUT EVERY PERSON WHO IS EXPERT IN HIS FIELD MAY BE CALLED LEARNED (IN URDU LEARNED MEANS 'FAZIL' WHICH MEANS Talented Expert Intelligent Wise)
MR. BHAGAT IS WRONG AND HIMSELF PROVED THAT HE IS NOWHERE LEARNED.
SITE ADMINISTRATOR MUST TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SUCH OTIOSE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS SITE.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 10 February 2011
Well why you comment on one sided basis only. That lady was telling all are duffers on this site ,do you agree.
