32. Power of Court to permit appearances in particular cases.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any particular case.
(q) ” pleader”, when used with reference to any proceeding in any Court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practise in such Court, and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding;
The Apex Court held as follows in regards to the right or lack thereof of a party to go as in-person in a case in a court. Legendary Judge Krishnaiyer, V.R. has allowed permission to a friend of a Plaintiff, who is not a advocate, to plead his case in court of law.
“1. A private person who is not an Advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the Court may even after grant of permission, withdraw it half-way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, and reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission.
2. The Advocates are entitled as of right to practice in this Court under S. 30(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 subject to the reasonable restriction provided under s. 29 of that Act viz. that the only class of persons entitled to practice the profession of law shall be advocates. Even so, it is open to a party, who is unable for some reason or the other to present his case adequately, to seek the help of another person in his behalf. To negative such a plea may be denying justice altogether in certain cases, especially in a land of illiteracy and indigence and judicial processes of sophisticated nature…………….
3. A comprehensive programme of free legal services, is in a sense,a serious obligation of the State if the rule of law were to receive vitality in its observance. Until then, parties should appear through advocates, and where they are not represented by one such, through some chosen friend. Such other person cannot practice the profession of habitually representing parties in Court. If a non-advocate pecialises in practicing in Court, professionally he will be violating the text of the interdict in the Advocates Act, which the Court cannot allow him to do so. Nevertheless it is open to a person who is a party to a proceeding to get himself represented by a non-advocate in a particular instance or case. Practicing a profession means something very different from representing some friend or relation on one occasion or in one case or on a few occasions ,or in a few cases. “
Citation: [1977 ACR SC 363], [1978 AIR SC 1019], [1978 SCC 2 165], [1978 SCC CRI 168], [1978 SCR 3 493], [1978 ALR 4 353], [1978 CAR 174], [1978 CRLR 161], [1978 MLJ CRI 1 640], [1978 UJ SC 301], [1978 CRLJ SC 778]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1704613/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abd1e4b014971140d6a8
Welcome back dear friend.
Gathered from the various sources here are the definitions of different terms for the person who is related to law in a way or more.
Lawyer is a person who has completed his bachelors degree in law (LLB) but has not registered his name with any bar council in India.
Advocate is a person who has not only completed his law degree but also got his registration done with the bar council and are governed by the Advocates Act, 1961. Thus, advocate is a person who can represent you in a legal dispute before the appropriate court.
Pleader includes any person other than one authorised by law to practice in a court if he is appointed with the permission of the court, to act in a particular proceeding (under section 32 of Advocates Act of India, 1961).
Also read this page here:
Attorney:
Solicitor
Barrister
Another awesome judgment from Karnataka reiterating that when a client loses confidence and faith in his Advocate he can choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the case file.
Be that as it may, neither the trial Court in the present suit nor this Court in this petition would be required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations and counter allegations except to reckon the same to notice that the Advocates on record and their clients have been trading charges against each other, which alone is sufficient for a client to loose confidence and faith in the Advocate so as to choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the file. The very fact that the Advocate is clinging on to the file without initiating any other action which would have been open to them in law, if in fact the Trustees had acted contrary to the interest of the Trust would indicate that the contentions put forth before the trial Court was not bonafide, at least in so far as claiming a right to remain on record as saviours of the first respondent when the first respondent has been in existence from the year 1958 as indicated from their letterhead and have taken care of themselves.
Honourable Profession… hmmm
In fact as and when any such unfortunate situation arises, the learned Advocate who has been appearing for such a client, should on his own free will come forward to advise the client to take back the file and should express lack of interest to appear on their behalf. That is why, this profession is known as honourable profession.
Other Judgements on this subject here.
This WP is dismissed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a dispute between a advocate and his client who wanted to change to a different advocate and seeking No objection certificate.
The writ petition is not maintainable as the relief sought is in respect of breach of contract between a lawyer and his client. The remedy lies elsewhere and not before this court in this writ jurisdiction. The petition is disposed of without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner.
Awesome Judgment from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that vividly affirms that there is no need for a No Objection certificate from a advocate if a client wants to change to a different advocate.
The second respondent in any event cannot hold on to the brief when the petitioner has issued a notice terminating his Vakalathnama and has sought for issue of “No objection”.
A earlier judgment related to same parties here.
This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on two aspects
(a) Has the advocate a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his client?
(b) Does the client has freedom to choose and engage a advocate and change the advocate?
Thus, even after providing a right for an advocate to deduct the fees out of any money of the client remaining in his hand at the termination of the proceeding for which the advocate was engaged, it is important to notice that no lien is provided on the litigation files kept with him. In the conditions prevailing in India with lots of illiterate people among the litigant public it may not be advisable also to permit the counsel to retain the case bundle for the fees claimed by him. Any such lien if permitted would become susceptible to great abuses and exploitation.
… and more…
A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.
In criminal cases, every person accused of an offence has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice which is now made a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The said right is absolute in itself and it does not depend on other laws. In this context reference can be made to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shobharam and ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1910). The words of his choice in Article 22(1) indicate that the right of the accused to change an advocate whom he once engaged in the same case, cannot be whittled down by that advocate by withholding the case bundle on the premise that he has to get the fees for the services already rendered to the client.
If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate.
Citations : [2000 AIR SC 3049], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 375], [2000 ALT SC 5 1], [2001 BLJR 1 174], [2000 CTC 3 757], [2001 GLH 3 624], [2000 JT SC 9 432], [2000 KLT SC 3 438], [2001 LW 1 284], [2001 MHLJ SC 1 23], [2000 MPLJ SC 613], [2000 PLJR 4 161], [2000 RD 91 692], [2000 SCALE 6 42], [2000 SCC 7 264], [2000 SUPP SCR 2 598], [2001 UJ 1 27], [2000 UPLBEC 3 2404], [2000 AIR SC 2912], [2000 CTR 163 32]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151656/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad8de4b0149711411a9d
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma
http://www.briefcased.in/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma/
https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-22160
Karnataka High Court Judgments:
Other Judgements on this subject here.
Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment, had rejected the application of a Deputy Manager of a Company to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-Company.
A natural person can, of course, appear in person and argue his own case personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone other than a person who is enrolled as an advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.
Who can be Party in Person?
Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the court, authority or person to permit any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before the court and argue a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not the right of a person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on the court to permit any one to appear in a particular case even though he is not enrolled as an advocate.
… and more…
We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a registered co-operative society, or a trust, neither the Director of the Company nor member of the Managing Committee or office bearer of the registered society or a trustee has a right to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity is distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors. However, it is the discretion of the court under Section 32 of the Act to permit such person to appear on behalf of that entity.
From Para 7,
7. There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf of someone, which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the discretion in the court to permit a non-lawyer to appear before it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act only those persons have a right to appear and argue before the court who are enrolled as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power is vested in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other than an advocate to appear before it and argue the case. A power-of-attorney holder cannot, unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in court on behalf of anyone, unless, permitted by the court under Section 32 of the Act, though of course he may sign sale deeds, agreements, etc. and do other acts on behalf of someone else, unless prohibited by law.
Citations : [2011 ACR SC 2 2269], [2011 JKJ SC 3 56], [2011 JT SC 7 559], [2011 KLT SC 3 498], [2011 RCR CIVIL 4 252], [2011 SCALE 7 413], [2011 SCC 15 449], [2011 SCR 7 846], [2014 SCC CIV 2 617], [2011 MWN CR 3 290], [2011 AIOL 469], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 257], [2011 KLT 3 498], [2011 JT 7 559]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170747848/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af02e4b0149711415575
In this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the General Power of Attorney Holder was allowed to act on behalf of Plaintiff under Section 32 of Advocates Act. This is done under the discretionary power of Hon’ble Court and on application of Plaintiff. Plaintiff can not claim this to be one of his rights.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1092 access attempts in the last 7 days.
