GHANASHYAM SAMAL Vs. UDAYANATH SARANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging publication of defamatory item of news against the plaintiff, in an Oriya daily `The Samaj', he claimed damage of Rs. 50,000/- against the Publisher, Editor and the local correspondent in a suit. Local correspondent who is an Advocate is defendant No. 3.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 was set ex parte. Defendant No. 2 engaged defendant No. 3 as his Advocate. During trial of the suit, plaintiff filed an application on 25-8-1983 objecting to the appearance of defendant No. 3 in robes and on account of the fact that he cannot appear as an Advocate without wearing robes for defendant No. 2, his appearance and acts for defendant No. 2 is contrary to the provisions of Advocates Act and as such, should be treated as non est. Defendant No. 3 filed objection stating that he is contesting the suit for himself as defendant No. 3 and not as the Advocate. At the time of hearing of the petition several other objections were put forward. Decision of trial Court in respect of robes to be put on by defendant No. 3 is not seriously assailed in this Civil Revision and accordingly, the said dispute requires no discussion. His acting as an Advocate when he is likely to be a witness is the main point of attack of Mr. Prithivraj, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner although defendant No. 3 had filed objection in the trial Court that he is contesting the suit for himself as a defendant and not as an Advocate.

(3.) Entire exercise of the plaintiff in this case is based on misconception of fact and law. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement. Whatever is the defence of defendant No. 3 is also the defence of defendant No. 1. In such cases, where there is joint defence, one individual can defend both the defendants. There is no provision that an Advocate is essential to be engaged in a suit. A party may prefer to defend himself personally or through his agent. When two defendants contest a suit together, one of them can defend both and take all steps in that regard. He cannot in such circumstances be treated as an Advocate. His taking steps is not prohibited by any law. Merely because a person so defending happens to be an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates' Act, 1961 is not a circumstance to obstruct him to defend in the aforesaid premises.