(1.) SHRI Chaphekar objected in this case that on the strength of Special Power of Attorney Shri Puniya can appear but he has no right to act and plead on behalf of Respondent in High Court and in support of his arguments he cited two decisions in the case of Vidyawati Hemchand v. Fattilal Devidin, reported in 1969 JLJ 250 = 1969 MPLJ 193; and in the case of Badri Prasad v. District Judge Indore, reported in 1964 JLJ 348 (DB).
(2.) SHRI Puniya is appearing on the basis of General Power of Attorney or Special Power of Attorney in three cases i.e. Misc. Appeals No. 39,40 and 41 of 2001 on behalf of his wife and on behalf of his two sons. In this regard the submission of Shri Puniya is that under Order III Rule 2 of the CPC he is entitled to appear, act and plead on behalf of the parties. Admittedly in none of the cases he is party before the High Court. Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a person who is not an Advocate or a legal practitioner can appear in cases on behalf of the parties as their recognized agent on the strength of General Power of Attorrney given by them in his favour, but as has been held in the case of Badri Prasad (supra), that he has no right of pleadings, that is to say, no right of audience, in Court, no right of addressing the Court and no right of examining and cross -examining the witnesses.
(3.) THEREFORE , in this case too I am of the opinion that Shri N.S. Puniya, who is appearing on behalf of the parties on the basis of General or Special Power of Attorney, can appear but he cannot act or plead on their behalf in the High Court. He has no right of audience. Therefore, it is directed that for the purpose of acting and pleading, he may engage the services of any Advocate if he wants to do so and for that two weeks time is allowed to him otherwise on the next date of hearing he will not be allowed to act or plead or address the Court on behalf of the parties. As prayed by him, list on 31.7.2002 for further hearing in the matter.