1954 (10) TMI 50 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Order III, Rule 1 regarding the right of audience for a constituted attorney in court. Analysis of the right to plead, act, and practice in the High Court under relevant laws and provisions.

In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the Chief Justice addressed the issue raised by Mr. Bengeri regarding the right of a constituted attorney to have audience in court on behalf of a party. The interpretation of Order III, Rule 1 was central to the discussion. The rule allows appearances, applications, or acts in court to be made by the party in person, a recognized agent, or a pleader, unless otherwise provided by law. The rule does not encompass the right to plead, examine witnesses, or cross-examine witnesses. The judgment referenced decisions from the Madras and Calcutta High Courts, emphasizing that an agent with a power-of-attorney does not have the right of audience in court. The judgment also discussed a Punjab case where a recognized agent was allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses, a view not accepted by the Chief Justice. The distinction between acting and pleading was highlighted, with the right of audience deemed a part of pleading.

Regarding the right to practice in the High Court, the judgment referred to Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, which limits the right to act or plead in the High Court to advocates, vakils, or attorneys. The Bar Councils Act, specifically Section 8, mandates that only those enrolled as Advocates of the High Court have the right to practice, encompassing both pleading and acting. The judgment pointed out that Section 8 aligns with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, indicating that the right to act or plead is restricted to enrolled advocates. Furthermore, the Bombay Pleaders' Act clarified that a recognized agent, as defined in Rule 2, Order III, can only appear or act but not plead in the districts. The proviso in the Act distinguished between appearing, pleading, or acting and appearing or acting alone, indicating that a recognized agent does not have the right to plead. This lack of right to plead consequently means no right of audience in court for a recognized agent.

The judgment concluded that even under a strict construction of Order III, Rule 1, a constituted attorney like Shambhuprasad has no right of audience in the High Court. The larger question of whether a recognized agent can act in the High Court was deemed essential for the Bar and may be addressed in the future. The assistance provided by the Advocate General and other representatives was acknowledged, and no costs were ordered.