BALACHANDRAN S Vs. N KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a senior member of the Thiruvananthapuram Bar and he challenges in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Ext.P2 order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reiterating the view of the ftfinisterial side of his Court that the Vakkalath filed by the petitioner in for one Smt. B. Rajamma who was the respondent in the RCA No. 47 of 1998 of that court was defective. Ext.P1 is the photostat copy of the Vakkalath which was actually filed by the petitioner in RCA. No. 47 of 1998. Ext.P1 shows that Smt. Rajamma, the respondent in the RCA had executed the Vakkalath in favour of the petitioner Advocate. Ext.P1 will also show that the Vakkalath has been accepted by the petitioner Advocate. The defect noted by the registry of the court is that the Vakkalath is not attested by any authorised person and that the attestation is done by the accepting Advocate himself.

(2.) Drawing our attention to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice Mr. L. Mohanan, learned Counsel would submit that the words "any other person" occurring in the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 includes the pleader who accepts the Vakkalath. Learned Counsel submitted that the proviso enables all persons other than the persons enumerated under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 including the pleader accepting the Vakkalath to attest the Vakkalath, provided the executant of the Vakkalath is personally known to that pleader and the pleader makes an endorsement to the effect that the Vakkalath is executed in his presence. Counsel submitted that there is absolutely no prohibition in the rule prohibiting attestation of the Vakkalath by the accepting pleader and in the absence of any such prohibition it was illegal on the part of the court below to have imported such a prohibition into the rule. Mr. Mohanan argued that the words "any other person" occurring in the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 can include only "any one other than the pleader accepting the same" would mean that even a stranger can attest the Vakkalath in the absence of the pleader which would make the attestation meaningless. Drawing our attention to Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice dealing with form and attestation of Vakkalaths Mr. Mohanan argued that the said rule clearly provides that the accepting pleader can attest the Vakkalath when the executant is personally known to that pleader and an endorsement to that effect is made by the pleader. Mr. Mohanan submitted that the practice which has been followed hitherto in the courts at Thiruvananthapuram has been that the accepting pleader himself attested the Vakalathnama and such Vakalathnamas were being accepted by the registry without any objection whatsoever. The Counsel concluded by submitting that approving Ext.P2 will result in considerable inconvenience to the members of the Bar.

(3.) Having considered the submissions of Mr.L.Mohanan in the light of the relevant rules we came to be of the view that there is no warrant whatsoever for interfering with Ext.P2 in the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227. On being informed about our view in the matter Mr. L. Mohanan sought for leave to withdraw from the writ petition since according to him giving approval to Ext.P2 by this Court will result in prejudice to the Bar. We cannot agree and we are not inclined to grant the leave sought for having heard the learned Counsel at length and having been taken through all the relevant provisions.