9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of allowing co-plaintiffs in a suit to be represented by separate advocates and cross-examined individually. Analysis: The judgment deals with an application filed by defendant No. 7 challenging an order of the Small Causes Court allowing co-plaintiffs to be represented by separate advocates and cross-examined individually. The main issue is whether each co-plaintiff has the right to engage their own advocate independently. The judge highlighted the long-standing practice in the High Court and English courts where all co-plaintiffs are jointly represented by one or more counsel. The court emphasized the importance of avoiding wastage of time and complications in legal proceedings by permitting separate representation for each plaintiff. The court emphasized that co-plaintiffs join a suit due to a common question of law or fact, and allowing separate representation would defeat the purpose of avoiding multiple suits. The judgment referred to a case from 1853 where the Master of the Rolls stated that co-plaintiffs must act together and cannot engage separate counsel. The court stressed the need for efficiency in legal proceedings and the importance of one counsel being in charge of the case for all co-plaintiffs to prevent unnecessary delays and complications. The judgment discussed the provisions of Order 1, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows plaintiffs to appoint one of them to act on their behalf. However, the court clarified that this rule does not entitle each plaintiff to have separate representation. The court highlighted the power of the court under Order 1, Rule 11 to direct one counsel to be in charge of the case for all plaintiffs. The judgment emphasized the court's responsibility to ensure proceedings are not unduly protracted and time is not wasted. Ultimately, the court noted that the learned counsel for the co-plaintiffs agreed to uphold the tradition of joint representation and agreed to have both advocates appear jointly for the plaintiffs. The court appreciated the counsel's agreement to maintain the healthy traditions of the courts. The judgment concluded by stating no order was passed on the application, and no costs were awarded. The court did not express an opinion on the issue of allowing a guarantor to cross-examine defendants, leaving it open for future consideration.
|
