SURATRAM Vs. ATMARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was filed on 28th June 1927 by a first grade pleader on the authority of a vakalatnama executed in his favour by a second grade pleader who was authorized by Suratram, the appellant, to appear and conduct the ease on his behalf, and in whose favour a vakalatnama was executed on 5th October 1926. This vakalatnama does not specifically authorize the pleader named in it, to file an appeal or to authorize some one also to do so. The portion of the vakalatnama, on which the learned advocate for the appellant relied, runs as follows:-- We is vakalatnama ke zariye se wakil mausuf ko ye bhi ikhtiar hasil rahega ke makaddami sadar men wakt zarurat par doosra Wakil ya Barrister makarrar karen.

(2.) IT was argued that on the authority of the above condition in the vakalatnama, the pleader appointed by the appellant could engage and authorize another pleader to file the appeal. The terms are quite definite and clear and do not allow any such authorization, as is suggested. The pleader could only appoint another pleader or a barrister, in case of emergency and in that suit. There is no authority to appoint another pleader on behalf of the appellant to file an appeal on the termination of the suit. The fact that the appellant appointed a second grade pleader to conduct this case in the trial Court shows that he-did not expect the pleader to act for him in connexion with the appeal to be filed in this Court, after the termination of the suit, because second grade pleaders; cannot appear and act in this Court. We therefore hold that the vakalatnama given to the pleader on 5th October 1926 by the appellant did not contain any authority, authorizing the pleader to file an appeal in this Court.

(3.) , Civil P.C. will not enable, the pleader to appoint another pleader to file an appeal in this Court. 4. It was next suggested that the pleader, appointed on 5th October 1926 was a recognized agent who could engage a pleader on behalf of the appellant. We have already pointed out in para. 1 of this judgment that the pleader had no authority to appoint another pleader. The-authorized agent could not possibly have any more authority than what was given, to him by the power-of-attorney and as the power-of-attorney did not empower the agent to appoint a pleader to file an appeal, the pleader as a recognized agent, could not authorize another pleader to file an appeal. We therefore hold that the pleader who filed the appeal in this Court, had no authority on behalf of the appellant to file the appeal and, therefore, the appeal was not properly presented.