HORMUSJI K BHABHA Vs. NANA APPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in these two civil revision applications is, whether the appointment in writing required to be given to an advocate to act and plead for a client in the Small Causes Court, requires a revenue stamp of Re. 1 or not, and the answer depends on the further question of, whether such a document is a power- of-attorney, or not.

(2.) The facts on which these applications are based were, that on November 30, 1931, Mr. Hormusji K. Bhabha's advocate, Mr. Sorab B. Dadyburjor, made an application to the Registrar of the Small Causes Court to institute a suit for rent due-Rs. 24-from one of Mr. Bhabha's tenants. The application was in order, except that it was not signed by Mr. Bhabha as it might have been, but by Mr. Dadyburjor purporting to act for him, on the strength of what is called in our Courts a vakalatnama, Which was unstamped.

(3.) It appears that, on November 7, 1931, what is Order III, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, was applied by the High Court to the Small Causes Court, Bombay, by an amendment of the Schedule and Rules of Procedure and Practice of the Court of Small Causes.