TAJU & ORS Vs. SHOKIN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate First Class No.2, Beawar, District Ajmer whereby the learned Magistrate has granted time to the counsel for the respondents-defendants to submit his Vakalatnama on the next date.

(2.) Mr. Deepak Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that on 16.07.2012, Mr. C.D. Sankhla, Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the respondents before the learned trial court. However, he had not filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. During the course of the proceedings, by order dated 30.08.2012, the respondents were prohibited from filing their written statement. Therefore, the respondents filed a writ petition before this court. By order dated 02.01.2013, the writ petition was allowed; it was directed that the respondents' written statement be taken on record provided they pay a cost of Rs.2500/-. Further, during the course of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs examined the case file. He realized that neither the cost has been paid, nor Vakalatnama has been filed by Mr. Sankhla on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, he moved an application under Section 151 CPC for not taking the written statement on record, and raised his objection that Mr. Sankhla could not represent the respondents-defendants before the learned trial court. However, by order dated 07.04.2014, the learned Magistrate has granted time to Mr. Sankhla to submit his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent-defendants by the next date.

(3.) The learned counsel has pleaded that according to the Order 3, Rule 4 CPC, a pleader should be appointed by the party by following the due procedure. However, in the present case, the respondents have failed to appoint a pleader. But despite the fact that he was not appointed as a pleader, Mr. Sankhla continued to protect the respondents' interests. Moreover, he filed a written statement on their behalf. But in absence of a proper Vakalatnama, neither the application can be entertained, nor the written statement can be taken on record. The learned counsel has relied on the case of M/s. Rakyans Jewellers & Anr. v. Hari Shankar,1987 2 RLR 688] in order to buttress his contention that a pleader cannot act on behalf of the party without having submitted his Vakalatnama. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that, in fact, no time should have been given to the counsel to submit his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.