ASWIN SHAMBHUPRASAD PATEL Vs. NATIONAL RAYON CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of very great importance to the Bar has been rained by Mr. Bengeri on this petition. The petitioner gave a general power-of-attorney to one Shambhuprasad in a civil revision application and when the application came up before me this Shambhuprasad wanted to address me in Court on behalf of his client, and the question that arises is whether a constituted attorney has the right of audience in this Court on behalf of the party.

(2.) Mr. Bengeri relies on the provisions of Order III, Rule 1. Order III deals with recognised agents and pleaders and Rule 1 thereof provides that

(3.) The contention put forward by Mr. Bengeri before me is that "pleading" is included in the expression "appearance, application or act in or to any Court." In my opinion it is clear that "pleading" would not he included in any of these expressions. The right of audience in Court, the right to address the Court, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, are all parts of pleading with which Order III does not deal at all. It deals with restricted class of acts in connection with the litigation in Court and it is with regard to that restricted class of act that Order III permits recognised agents to be appointed, If authority was needed for this proposition, there is ample authority. There is the decision of the full bench of the Madras High Court in -- 'Krishnammal v. Balasubramania Pillai', AIR 1937 Mad 937 (KB) (A), and there are also two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in -' Harchand Ray Gobordhon Das v. B. N. Rly. Co.', AIR 1916 Cal 181 (1) (B) and 'In re: Eastern Tavoy Minerals "Corporation Ltd,', AIR 1934 Cal 563 (C). Both the Madras High. Court and the Calcutta High Court held that an agent with a powerof- attorney has no right of audience in Court. Mt. Bengeri has drawn my attention to a recent decision of the East Punjab in --'G.G. in Council v. Bhagwan Salmi', AIR 1948 EP 61 (D). There the learned Judge Mr. Justice Teja Singh took the view that a recognised agent had the right on behalf of the party to examine & cross- examine witnesses. The learned Judge conceded that pleading was quite different from acting and that Order III did not deal with pleading. But he took the view that examining and cross-examining witnesses was part of acting and not part of pleading. With respect, I find myself unable to agree with the learned Judge. But as far as the right of audience is concerned, there can he no doubt that it is a part of pleading and not a part of acting.