(Jagdish Singh Khehar and S.A. Bobde, JJ.)
Ram Prakash and Another ___________________________ Appellant;
v.
Puttan Lal _____________________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1383-84 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 442-443 of 2015], decided on January 30, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The solitary contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate, who had appeared on behalf of the appellants-tenants, before the High Court, had no right to compromise the matter on behalf of the appellants-tenants. It was submitted, that Ms. Vandana Singh had no right to express the consent of the appellants-tenants, to the conditions indicated in the order passed by the High Court. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants further states, that the appellants-tenants had never engaged Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate, to represent them before the High Court. It was therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the impugned order must be deemed to have been passed without the consent of the appellants-tenants.
3. To assail the submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, that Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate, had been engaged by the appellants-tenants and that, Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate had been appearing in the case before the High Court, on various earlier dates of hearing, as a brief-holder on behalf of Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate, and as such, she had the right to represent the appellants-tenants before the High Court. In order to affirm the aforesaid submission and the right of Ms. Vandana Singh to represent the appellants-tenants before the High Court, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord invited our attention to the relevant Rule framed by the High Court, under Section 34(1) of the Advocate’s Act, 1961, which is being extracted below:
“2. Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, no advocate shall be entitled to appear, plead or act for any person in any Court in any proceeding unless the advocate files an appointment in writing signed by such person or his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment and signed by the Advocate in token of its acceptance, or the advocate files a memorandum of appearance in the form prescribed by the High Court:
Provided that where an advocate has already filed an appointment in any proceeding, it shall be sufficient for another advocate, who is engaged to appear in the proceedings merely for the purposes of pleading, to file a memorandum of appearance or to declare before the Court that he appears on instructions from the advocate who has already filed his appointment in the proceeding:
Provided further that nothing herein contained shall apply to an advocate who has been requested by the Court to assist the Court in any case or proceeding or who has been appointed at the expense of the State to defend an accused person in a criminal proceedings.
Explanation.- A separate appointment or a memorandum of appearance shall be filed in each of the several connected proceedings notwithstanding that the same advocate is retained for the party in all connected proceedings.”
4. Having perused the aforestated Rule, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, we are of the view that Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate, cannot be deemed to have been vested with the right as a brief-holder to compromise the issue before the High Court, or to express the consent of the appellants-tenants, to an order proposed by the High Court.
5. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned order passed by the High Court on 25.08.2014 based on the consent of Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate, deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside. As a sequel to the above, order dated 20.11.20141 is also set aside.
6. The writ petition disposed of by the High Court is ordered to be restored to its original number. The High Court is requested to decide the same in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court, on 12.02.2015.
7. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).442-443/2015
Ram Prakash & Anr ______________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Puttan Lal ______________________________________ Respondent
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief and office report)
Date: 30/01/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Jagdish Singh Khehar and S.A. Bobde, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vinod K. Shukla, Adv.
Mr. M. C. Dhingra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. R.K. Raizada, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
8. Leave granted.
9. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
———
1 Puttan Lal v. Ram Prakash, MCC No. 823 of 2014 in WPMS No. 5459 of 2001, order dated 20-11-2014 (Utt)
