LAWS(PVC)-1947-12-46

GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN COUNCIL Vs. BHAGWAN SAHAI

Decided On December 15, 1947
GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN COUNCIL Appellant
V/S
BHAGWAN SAHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the decree of the Judge of Small Cause. Court, Delhi. The plaintiff in the case, belongs to Delhi. He brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 316-11-0 against the Governor General in Council on the allegations that he was the consignee of the two bags of brass cooks that were despatched through the North Western Railway from Rahwali to Delhi on 6th August 1944, and since the bags were not delivered to him by the Railway and were lost by them he was entitled to the price of the cocks together with profits that he could have made out of them. The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. He denied that the plaintiff was the consignee of the bags in question or that he had any Zooms standi to maintain the action. He also denied that any valid notice had been given under Section 80, Civil P.C., or that the suit was within time. Last of all he denied that the plaintiff was entitled to recover anything from him. The issues framed by the trial Court read as follows: (1) Is the suit within limitation? (2) Did plaintiff serve the defendant with a valid notice under Section 80, Civil P.C.? (3) Has plaintiff a locus standi to sue? (4) Is defendant not liable to pay the price of the missing consignment? and (5) To what amount is the plaintiff entitled? The first four issues were found for the plaintiff. As regards the last issue, the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled only to recover from the defendant the price of the cocks which was Rs. 255 and accordingly decreed the suit to that extent. The defendant has now put in this revision petition against the decree.

(2.) The first point raised by Mr. Naranjan Singh Keer on behalf of the petitioner was, that the defendant was not allowed sufficient opportunity to conduct his case in the Court below. Now what happened was that a Litigation Inspector of the North Western Railway appeared in the lower Court to conduct the case on behalf of the defendant. He held a regular power of attorney from the General Manager of the North Western Railway authorising him inter alia to appear on behalf of the defendant, to represent him in the proceedings and to do everything for the conduct of the case. When the case came to the evidence stage and the Inspector wanted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the plaintiff the Judge of the Court below did not allow him to do so. He even did not permit the Inspector to examine the witnesses whom the defendant wished to produce with a view to rebut the plaintiff's evidence. It appears that he first passed oral orders disallowing the Litigation Inspector from examining and cross-examining the witnesses. Later on the Litigation Inspector put in an application. On this he made a formal order on 3i July, 1946. After referring to his oral orders he stated as as follows: There are numerous rulings to the effect that there is no warrant whatever for putting a power-of-attorney given to a recognised agent to conduct proceedings in Court in the same category as a Vakalatnama given to a legal practitioner. The latter power-of-attorney or appointment is confined only to pleaders, that is those who have right to plead in Courts. The Litigation Inspector cannot be allowed to conduct the proceedings in the same way as a recognised pleader. He has got no right of audience on behalf of the defendant and nor is he entitled to plead on behalf of the defendant.

(3.) As regards the first part of the above order it is quite correct that a recognised agent appointed under Order 3, Rule 2, Civil P.C., stands on a different footing from a pleader duly authorised and appointed to conduct a case. It is also true that a pleader in so far as the conduct of the case is concerned, possesses more rights than the recognised agent of a party, but it does not follow therefrom that because the pleader possesses the right to, cross-examine witnesses produced by the opposite side and lead the evidence of his own side, a recognised agent must be denied these rights for this reason alone.