RAMESH KUMAR Vs. ASHISH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Let the application be numbered. This application is filed by the defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, praying that Mr. S.K. Puri, Senior Advocate, should be debarred from examining and cross-examining the witnesses on the ground that a Senior Advocate cannot undertake this work in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Advocates Act. The gravamen of the charge is that Section 16 of the Advocates Act read with Order 4 Sub-rule (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 confers special status on Senior Advocate and along with this there are certain restrictions attached to the designation of Senior Advocate conferred upon a Counsel. It is submitted that a Senior Advocate can only "plead" and he cannot "act" on behalf of litigating party. It is also stated that since Senior Advocate is specifically precluded from drafting pleadings or affidavits and giving advice on evidence to the parties, it would necessarily follow that he cannot undertake examination of the witnesses inasmuch as for conducting the examination/cross-examination, it would necessarily involve direct interaction with the client and also giving advice on evidence. Reference is also made to the provisions of Section 119 of the CPC which, inter alia, reads as under:

(2.) Submission of the learned Counsel, however, is that an Advocate who is not authorised by a party to the suit can address the Court or examine witnesses, except where the Court shall have in exercise of the powers conferred by its charter authorised him to do so and since party to litigation cannot give Vakalatnama to the Senior Advocate and consequently authorise Senior Advocate to appear on his behalf, it would necessarily follow that a Senior Advocate has no right to examine witnesses. For distinction between "acting on behalf of a client" and "pleading on his behalf, learned Counsel has referred to a Single Judge judgment of Orissa High Court in D. AdinarayanaSubudhiv. D. Surya Prakash Rao, AIR 1980 Orissa 110. Specific emphasis was laid on the following observations in this case:

(3.) He also referred to a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. etc., AIR 2003 Karnataka 30, which is to the same effect.