Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri Venkatesh Reddy, was petitioner No.39 in a batch of writ petitions before the Single Judge. He had executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of Shri C.P. Tayal, who appointed an advocate to represent the appellant. The appellant terminated the GPA on 05.08.2019 and published a public notice. Subsequently, the appellant filed I.A. Nos.2, 3, and 4 of 2019 through a new advocate. The Single Judge held that the applications were not maintainable because the new advocate had filed a vakalathnama without obtaining a 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate. The appellant challenged this order in the present writ appeal. The Division Bench considered the provisions of Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court noted that the appointment of the earlier advocate was made by the GPA holder, who was authorized by the appellant. The termination of the GPA does not automatically terminate the advocate's appointment. Under Order III Rule 4(2), the appointment of a pleader remains in force until determined with the leave of the court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader and filed in court. Since the earlier advocate's appointment was not terminated in accordance with this rule, the new advocate could not appear without a 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate or leave of the court. The Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Pleader - Order III Rule 4 CPC - Vakalathnama - No Objection - The appellant's earlier advocate was appointed by a General Power of Attorney holder. The GPA was terminated on 05.08.2019. The appellant filed applications through a new advocate without obtaining a 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate. The Single Judge held the applications not maintainable. The Division Bench upheld the order, holding that the appointment of the earlier advocate was by the appellant through his GPA holder, and the termination of GPA does not automatically terminate the advocate's appointment. The new advocate must obtain a 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate or seek leave of the court. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an advocate can file applications on behalf of a party without obtaining a 'No Objection' from the previously appointed advocate, when the earlier advocate was appointed by a General Power of Attorney holder whose authority has been terminated.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order that the applications were not maintainable.
Law Points
- Appointment of pleader
- Termination of power of attorney
- Vakalathnama
- No objection certificate
- Order III Rule 4 CPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (11) 1
Writ Appeal No.3854 of 2019 (LA-BDA) (F.R. No.3863 of 2019)
Hon'ble Mr. Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar
Shri Shashidhar Belagumba (for appellant)
The Bengaluru Development Authority, The State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against an order of the Single Judge dismissing applications as not maintainable due to lack of 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the order dated 16.09.2019 on I.A. Nos.2, 3, and 4 of 2019 in W.P. No.23356/2019 and allow the applications.
Filing Reason
The appellant's new advocate filed applications without obtaining a 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate, who was appointed by the appellant's General Power of Attorney holder.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge held that the applications were not maintainable because the new advocate filed vakalath without obtaining 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate.
Issues
Whether the termination of a General Power of Attorney automatically terminates the appointment of an advocate made by the GPA holder?
Whether a new advocate can appear for a party without obtaining a 'No Objection' from the previously appointed advocate?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the GPA was terminated on 05.08.2019 and a public notice was published, so the new advocate is entitled to appear.
The respondents argued that the appointment of the earlier advocate was not terminated in accordance with Order III Rule 4 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
The appointment of a pleader under Order III Rule 4 CPC remains in force until determined with the leave of the court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader and filed in court. Termination of a General Power of Attorney does not automatically terminate the advocate's appointment. A new advocate must obtain a 'No Objection' from the earlier advocate or seek leave of the court.
Judgment Excerpts
As far as the appointment of an advocate is concerned, the same is governed by Rule 4 of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order III of the said Code provides that every such appointment shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court.
Procedural History
The appellant filed W.P. No.23356/2019 along with other writ petitions. The appellant filed I.A. Nos.2, 3, and 4 of 2019 through a new advocate. The Single Judge dismissed the applications as not maintainable on 16.09.2019. The appellant filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order III Rule 4
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
