Can Adv without vakalatnama represent other Adv in case?

Can Advocate without the signature of Opponent/Disputant on the Vakalatnama permitted to represent that DIspuant/Applicant who has not signed the Vakalatnama

Hello Members,

I have some queries in this regard.

1) What if the 3 to 4 lawyer's name is given in vakalatnama filed by opponent party's counsel and it is not signed by all the lawyer's whose names are there.

2) if a new vakalatnama is filed by a new lawyer from the opponent party's side which is signed by this new lawyer only. does this new vakalatnama make the old one invalid means if still any lawyer whose name was in old vakalatnama only can appear in this case without signing the new vakaltnama.

3) if any lawyer has not filed vakalatnama for a client in other proceeding and has never appeared but in the proceeding where he is the authorized lawyer of the opponent party is claiming that he is representing the client in other proceeding also where his vakalatnama is not filed.

Is there anything wrong in all above mentioned situations which we can use against the opponent party/lawyer in our cases.

Thanks

pls consider my above asked queries in regard to civil / matrimonial proceedings in civil / family courts.

My question is if an ex parte order is passed and the Adv representing does not have consent of the litigent, and after two years he appears to set aside the ex parte order can he do that  and or can any other adv permitted to represent the said litigent after two yrs to quash ex parte award. Pl advise. 

Dear Sir,

It is not at all illegal. In fact Order 3 Rule 4(5) of the CPC provides that an Advocate who has filed his vakaltnama can instruct another Advocate to appear on his behalf and conduct the case. In such a case the other Advocate will not have to file any vakalatnama. The only act that is prohibited is that the second Advocate cannot withdraw the case or file a compromise on his behalf. There are numerous citations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts to this effect.

All ok in Indian court.

The SC observed that there is no such term as "proxy counsel" under the Advocates Act. 

Para 652(1) permits advocates to engage another advocate to appear on behalf of his party. In High Courts the Senior Advocate engagements are done in this way. Opponant party cannot object this type of engagements.

The original query was raised 7 years ago. Still people are merrily debating the issue. This is typical of Indian courts.

Sir,

It is definitely a old post. But, this is taking its toll on litigants & SEVERE injustices are happening. This NUISANCE HAS TO GOO.