vakalat

Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Order 3, Rule 4, CPC read as:

(1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment.

(2) Every such appointment shall be ¹[filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be] deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.

²[Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,-

............

So, by mere decision of the suit the contract or appointment of pleader does not come to an end (determined).

CPC does not provide for NOC from previous counsel. However, the relevant rules of the Bar Council prescribe so.

 If same counsel, then no need to file a fresh vakalath.

If different counsel, then need to file vakalath, but no need to get consent from the former counsel

I agree With Arivithan Ganesan's view

Dear Sir, With reference to Vakalt questions, I have one additional question in the same topic.

 * What's the procedure to cancel the Vakalat given for a specific Advocate.

* Any known issues or caution to take ?

Thank you

Dear Meenakshnini,

In practice, normally a party withraws instructions from his advocate and appoints another advocate. But, legally the  Vakalatnama in favour of earlier advocate remaines in force. The complete proceedure is to file an application Order 3 R 4 (2) before the court and seek the leave of the court to terminate the vakalatnama. however, in practice this proceedure is not applied as it will unnecessarilly generate another interim proceeding.

ajay kumar singh is totally wrong. restoration petition is not a new case  and as such no new vakalath   is required.

a consented vakalath is required if it is filed by some other advocate.

ajay kumar singh is totally wrong. restoration petition is not a new case  and as such no new vakalath   is required.

a consented vakalath is required if it is filed by some other advocate.

I agree with RajKumar

yes i do agree with rajkumar that for restoration there is no need for file vakalat but for fresh and intial filing vakalat is must

yes i do agree with rajkumar that for restoration there is no need for file vakalat but for fresh and intial filing vakalat is must