AMBEDAS KASHIBHAI AMIN Vs. VADILAL CHHAGANLAL CHOKSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against a refusal by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana to allow Mr. Purohit, an advocate enrolled on the Original Side of this High Court, to plead in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Thana without filing a vakalatnama under Order III, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code. That rule provides that no pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. Then Sub-rule (5) provides that no pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in Court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and giving certain particulars. Then there is a proviso which excludes from the operation of Sub-rule (5) any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has duly filed his vakalatnama. The definition of ' pleader' in the Civil Procedure Code is clearly wide enough to include an advocate enrolled on the Original Side of this High Court.

(2.) MR. Purohit, when the learned Judge refused to hear him without filing a vakalatnama, put in a memorandum signed by himself In accordance with Sub-rule (5) of Order III, Rule 4 . But the learned Judge refused to accept that. I do not know why, since he gave no reasons. I understand that MR. Purohit was only engaged to plead, and in that case a memorandum was sufficient. On that ground alone the case will have to go back to the Court of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana.

(3.) THE application must, therefore, be allowed and the case remitted to the lower Court to be tried according to law. THE opponent must pay the costs of the applicant. Sen, J.