Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Suhas (Not Working)     08 March 2011

1st Yr LLB, Can she 'act in any court' vide POA?

Can a 1st Year LLB student  hold POA on behalf of a party to suit so as to conduct the case on party's behalf?

 

I am a 1st year LLB fuultime and also started studying CS. 

But--There is very urgent situation wherein I want appear on behalf of my family members in a urgent Civil matter.

 

Can anyone explain Order 3 of CPC?

 

Order 3 R1:

Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf:

 

Next rule tells about agent (which need not necessarily be a pleader always).

 

Order 3 R2:

The recognized agent of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are-

(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;

But above (a), in Order 3 Rule 2, is amended by Bombay HC as-

(a) Persons holding on behalf of such parties either-

(i) a general power of attorney, or (ii) in the case of proceedings in the High Court of Bombay -an Attorney of such High Court or an Advocate,

and in the case of proceedings in any district,- any such Attorney or any Advocate or a Pleader to whom a sanad for that district has been issued, holding the requisite special power of attorney from parties not resident within the local limit of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or Act made or done,

authorising them or him to make and do such appearances, applications and Acts on behalf of such parties.

 

The above words amply suggest that-

A General POA holder can conduct the case .... or also if given such powers vide POA, a POA holder can additionally appoint a pleader also.  Hence if General POA is there, it does allow agent  to act on behalf of such paries.

 

Other option that I want  to avail, if available that I would get general POA and also file Vakalatnama and therein mention my name as well or in absence of appointed pleader on a hearing  I be allowed to 'act in the case' on behalf of the party to suit.

  

Please advise urgently to my question.



Learning

 8 Replies

R.Ramachandran (Advocate)     08 March 2011

Dear Suhas,

The words 'any appearance, appliation or act' in Order 3 Rule 1 CPC do not include pleading or arguing.  A recognized agent holding a general power of attorney therefore, cannot be allowed to plead and argue for his principal under that rule. [Refer 1959 Raj LW 54 = AIR 1959 Raj. 35]

The word 'act' appearing in Order 3, Rule 1 is not such as would iclude the act of pleading and is intended to cover only such acts as are capable of being done in the act of acting for a litigant.  The term 'act' therefore appears to have been used in the technical sense and not in the ordinary sense as being referable to any action by any party. [Ref. AIR 1959 Bom. 21]

Order 3 Rule 2

A non-Advocate cannot be permitted to address the Court on the strength of power of Attorney.  AIR 1990 AP 340.

The right of pleading and practising the law is the monopoly right conferred on registered Advocates.  - AIR 2001 Guj. 279 (283)

Apart from the above, even LL.B. degree holders from Academic year 2009-2010 are not permitted to appear before the Courts or to claim themselves as 'Advocates' unless they clear the All India Bar Examination.  When such is the position for even a LL.B. degree holder, you can well imagine your position as only a first year LL.B. student.

 

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     08 March 2011

Agreed with Shri.Ramachandran.

Damayanti (Unemployed)     08 March 2011

Dear Sir,

 

Will you clarify my following doubt. Thanks.

 

 

sentence is an expression in natural language.

 

Aren't these citations selectively interpreting the meaning and scope word 'acts' in above Order 3 rule 1,2 in the same line/sentence, although that word was in context to 'Who' can 'act'? .... subject (karta) in the sentence covers both POA and pleader.

 

Same sentence covers POA as well as the pleader and there is in between OR also.

 

 

Then how come the definition 'acts' gets expanded if it is used in context to pleader to include 'arguing and pleading' but same definition curtailed in context to a POA.

 

POA is assigned when party to suit is unable to be present personally (for lots of different reasons).

 

If POA is constrained NOT to plead, argue or take an decisions (Of course POA can't get into witness box on behalf of party to suit, neither Pleader is allowed) ....and if pleader does not appoint a lawyer then whole proceedings would get into a stale mate!!! and without hearing one party to suit although not ex-parte.

 

There is no compulsion and time limit to appointing pleader on POA as well, party to suit can't be held responsible as he has gven unfeterred POA and POA decided not to appont a pleader.

 

Lawmakers did not introduce, incorporate the POA to restrict the party to suit but to enable him to register his presence to suit proceedings, but subsequent interpretation is quite restricting the rights of one party.

 

Aren't we forgetting the evolution of legal professions!!

Gradually people realised that there can be specialists to represent the legal matter in adversarial system. and thus legal profession got into existance.

 

 

In criminal law, there are words for POA whether can plead or not ...'with permission of court'...and then court decides whether the POA or any non-advocate is worthy to help/assist in the process of jstice, POA's background etc etc and then it may allow as special case...but POA, as a right, can't argu or plead....but only if permitted by court!!!

So far, it looks that not a single POA has got permission by court.

 

 If Judiciary wants some accountability on the shoulds of POA, let POA sign undertaking to adhere to 'code of conduct' precribed for lawyer by BCI, and then there should be any hinderance as to why POA shouldn't be allowed to argu and plead the matter.

Anyways party-in-perso, pro-se litigants are there, then why not POA pleaders?...it is there risk 

 

But if there is stalemate that court doesn't give permission and POA also does not appoint a Pleader....then what would happen?

 

Damayanti (Unemployed)     08 March 2011

Spelling mistake....

 

If Anyways party-in-person, pro-se litigants are allowed, then why not also POA pleaders?...it is their risk whether to appoint a lawyer or not...

 

DR.SANAT KUMAR DASH (Eye Specialist)     10 March 2011

I   AGREE   WITH   SHRI   R.    RAMACHANDRAN,  ADVOCATE.

Naresh Kudal (none)     13 April 2011

Agree with Mr. Ramchandran.

raj kumar ji (LAW STUDENT )     13 April 2011

AGREE WITH RAMCHANDRAN

Dr. Rajkumar Hari Pol (Profession)     02 August 2011

 

Dear Suhas,

 

There is no absolute bar to non advocate person to plead before Hon'ble Court, but he can plead with the pre permission of that Hon'ble Court and not as a matter of right. There is lot of difference between a practise (profession) and represent for some relatives or friends.

 

The Order III Rue 1 CPC contemplates that a recognised agent can do 'any appearance, application or act'. That means a recognised agent can appear, make applications and take such steps as may be necessary in the course of the litigation as a matter of right as a provision in CPC, he can not plead before the Hon'ble Court as matter of right but he can plead with the pre permission of the Hon'ble Court and such application should be made by the principal (party in the case).

 

The sec. 2 (q) the CRPC defines pleader as, "pleader", when used with reference to any proceeding in any Court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practise in such Court, and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding;

 

 

That means any other person which is appointed with the permission of the Court come within the perview of the defination of pleader.

 

 

The sec. 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as "Power of court to permit appearances in perticular cases.- 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.”

 

 

 

There are so many case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts on this issue.

 

Some citations here,

 

 

 

1.      M. Krishnammal v. T. Balasubramania Pillai (AIR 1937 Madras 937)

 

2.      Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs Their Workmen (AIR 1977 SC 36)

 

3.      Harishankar Rastogi vs. Girdhari Sharma & anr. (AIR 1978 SC 1019)

 

4.      L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra & anr. (AIR 1996 SC 1602)

 

5.      T.C. Mathai & Anr vs The District & Sessions Judge, on 31 March, 1999 SC

 

6.      Shambhu Dutt Shastri vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 10 April, 1985 Raj

 

7.      Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 439)

 

8.      Bhartiya Bhavan Co op Housing Society Ltd vs Krishna H. Bajaj  (AIR 2004 Bom 387)

 

9.      Sanjay R. Kothari And Anr. vs South Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum And Anr. (AIR 2003 Bom 15)

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Dr. Rajkumar H. Pol.

 

My email address :     

 

rajkumarpol@rediffmail.com

 

 

 

Cell : 9850755276


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register