VINOD BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(HPH)-1991-10-20
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on October 03,1991

VINOD BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS Appellant
VERSUS
Rajinder Kumar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) I have heard Shri Bhardwaj on the question whether he can address the Court on behalf of the applicants without a specific request on behalf of those applicants to that effect before this Court.
(2.) Shri Bhardwaj read out portions of the general power of attorney executed in his favour, one by applicants Nos 1 and 2 and the other by the remaining applicants. No term of these documents authorises Shri D. D. Bhardwaj to claim audience or plead on behalf of the applicants before the Court.
(3.) Shri Bhardwaj drew my attention to the provisions contained in Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure These provisions in so far as they relate to a recognised agent, which Shri Bhardwaj claims to be, only enables a recognised agent to act for a party. It does not enable the recognised agent to plead on behalf of a party before a Court. Shri Bhardwaj then drew my attention to the provisions of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which enables the Court to permit a private individual, different from an Advocate, to plead a case on behalf of a party before it The Court has discretion under this provision to permit a non advocate to plead a specific case on behalf of a party before it. That discretion is to be exercised only on a request by the party to the proceedings that someone other than an Advocate may be allowed to address the Court on its behalf. So far, none of the applicants have made a prayer to that effect before this Court, though a prayer, on their behalf, was orally made by Shri D. D. Bhardwaj before the Court today.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.