VARSHA A MAHESHWARI Vs. BHUSHAN STEEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the hearing of this appeal, Shri. Ajay Maheshwari, holding the Power of Attorney on behalf of the appellant Mrs. VarshaMaheshwari, his wife, claimed to be heard on her behalf. Shri. Maheshwari asserted his right to be heard by this Court on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed by his wife. His contention was that since the Power of Attorney empowered him to act and appear on behalf of his wife, it conferred a right of audience before the Court. Since it appeared to us that there was no right of audience conferred to power of attorney before the Court of Law. we decided to go into the issue and requested Shri. Gilda, Advocate to assist us as amicus curiae.

(2.) After hearing amicus curiae and Shri. Ajay Maheshwari, the following position emerges. Shri. Maheshwari, Power of Attorney claims the right to be heard in view of holding a power of attorney and being a recognized agent under Order 3 of Civil Procedure Code, which empowers persons holding power of attorney to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the parties. The question is whether such persons are. therefore, entitled to "plead" on behalf of the persons authorizing them to appear and act on their behalf. The question is no more res integra and seems to be settled by long line of decisions in this Country, beginning with the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Ebrahim Saleji Vs. Johunnull Khemka., 1916 AIR(Cal) 181 (1). The said Division Bench of that Court in a classic one line judgment held as follows:

(3.) The next decision in which the same view was taken is the judgment of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of M. Krishnamnial Vs. T. Balasubramania Pillai., 1937 AIR(Mad) 937, where the Madras High Court observed that the power of attorney which empowered the attorney to swear affidavits, to file necessary petitions and to verify and sign the same, to appear and plead in Court in person on h is behalf, to engage advocates if necessary and to sign in their vakalats, to do all acts necessary in the conduct of the above proceedings and in furtherance thereof, did not empower such a person to conduct proceedings in the Court in the same category as a vakalat given to legal practitioner in the following words.