K S SHARMA Vs. KRISHNA TRADERS BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Sec. 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) is directed against the common order dtd. 24/11/89, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in eight complaints, the details of which are contained in the order.

(2.) It is not necessary to recount the facts leading to this revision in detail. Suffice it to state that Raghuveer Singh and others (non-petitioners no. 1 to 8) filed eight complaints against opposite-party non-petitioner no. 2 in respect of defective photostat machines. The complainants claimed compensation. It appears that on 12/10/89, a power of attorney signed by Shri K. S. Sharma, Advocate was filed in all the eight complaints. The District Forum heard the arguments on the question whether before the District Forum, a party is entitled to be represented by an advocate/lawyer/counsel/legal practitioner. The District Forum by its order dtd. 24/11/89, held that an advocate/ lawyer/cbunsel/legal practitioner cannot give appearance in the proceedings before the District Forum. Aggrieved Shri K. S. Sharma, Advocate and opposite-party-petitioner No. 2 have fiied this revision. Notices were issued to non-petitioners No. 1 to 8 complainants and District Forum, Bikaner non- petitioners no. 9 (a preforma party). Notices have been served on non-petitioners no. 2 and 4 to 9. Nobody has appeared on their behalf. The petitioners have submitted an appli-" cation that non-petitioners no. 1 and 3 whose notices have not been served, they may be dropped and the arguments in the revision may be heard and it may be decided.

(3.) We have heard Shri K.S. Sharma, Advocate (petitioner no. 1) and carefully considered the order under revision. An identical question arose before us in Principal, Shophia Girls Higher Secondary School vs. Kailash Chandra Singhal (Appeal No. 45/89 decided on Sept. 29, 1989) (1). One of the questions formulated in the appeal was whether the District Forum committed illegality and material irregularity in not allowing the opposite-party to be represented by an advocate/legal practitioner and that has affected the decision of the case on merits. It was observed therein as follows:-