Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a civil appeal (CAZ No. 93 of 2011) in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, where the appellant, Mrs. Varsha A. Maheshwari, proprietor of Parijat Enterprises, was represented by her husband, Shri Ajay Maheshwari, holding a power of attorney. At the hearing, Shri Maheshwari claimed the right to be heard on her behalf, asserting that the power of attorney empowered him to 'act and appear' and that he was a recognized agent under Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The court, however, doubted whether a power of attorney holder has a right of audience and appointed Shri Jugal Kishor Gilda as amicus curiae to assist. After hearing both sides, the court examined Order 3, Rule 1 CPC, which allows recognized agents to make appearances, applications, and acts on behalf of parties, but does not confer a right to plead. The court noted that the issue was settled by a long line of decisions, beginning with Ebrahim Saleji vs. Johurmull Khemka, AIR 1916 Calcutta 181(1), where a Division Bench held in a one-line judgment that 'A recognized agent as such has no right of audience.' This was followed in re, Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation Ltd., AIR 1934 Calcutta 563, where the learned Single Judge, relying on the earlier Division Bench, declined to hear a power of attorney holder. The court also referred to the Advocates Act, 1961, which restricts the right to plead to enrolled advocates. The court concluded that a power of attorney holder, even as a recognized agent, cannot claim a right of audience and cannot plead on behalf of a party. Accordingly, the court declined to hear Shri Maheshwari and directed the appellant to engage a lawyer for the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Right of Audience - Power of Attorney Holder - Order 3 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The question was whether a power of attorney holder, as a recognized agent, has a right to be heard in court. The court held that Order 3 CPC does not confer a right of audience; it only allows appearances, applications, and acts on behalf of a party, not pleading. The right to plead is reserved for enrolled advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Recognized Agent - Right to Plead - Order 3 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court relied on a long line of decisions, including Ebrahim Saleji vs. Johurmull Khemka, AIR 1916 Calcutta 181(1), which held that a recognized agent has no right of audience. The court declined to hear the power of attorney holder and directed the appellant to engage a lawyer. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person holding a power of attorney and being a recognized agent under Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has a right of audience (right to plead) before a court of law.
Final Decision
The court declined to hear the power of attorney holder and directed the appellant to engage a lawyer for the appeal.
Law Points
- Right of audience
- Power of attorney
- Recognized agent
- Order 3 CPC
- Legal profession
- Advocate Act
- 1961
