Special power of attorney can appear in court but can't plead.
خصوصی وکیل عدالت میں پیش ہو سکتا ہے مگر مقدمہ نہیں لڑ سکتا
تعارف
لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں ایک نظرثانی کی درخواست دائر کی گئی تھی، جس میں محترمہ صناء اسلم نے اپنے بھائی کو بطور خصوصی وکیل مقرر کیا تاکہ وہ عدالت میں ان کی نمائندگی کرے۔ اس کیس میں اہم قانونی سوال یہ تھا کہ کیا خصوصی وکیل عدالت میں خود مقدمہ لڑ سکتا ہے یا صرف دستاویزات پیش کر سکتا ہے۔
حقائق مقدمہ
اصل کیس میں عدالت نے آٹھ مارچ دو ہزار بائیس کو ایک مشترکہ فیصلہ سنایا تھا، جس میں پچھلی دو عدالتوں کے فیصلے کی توثیق کی گئی اور درخواست گزار اور جواب دہندگان کی درخواستیں خارج کر دی گئیں۔ متفرق درخواست گزار نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف نظرثانی کی درخواست دائر کی اور اپنے بھائی کو خصوصی وکیل مقرر کیا۔
خصوصی وکیل کا موقف
درخواست گزار کے بھائی نے موقف اختیار کیا کہ وہ عدالت میں قانونی وکیل کی خدمات نہیں لینا چاہتے بلکہ خود ہی درخواست پیش اور دلیل دیں گے۔ ان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ متعلقہ دستاویزات میں خامیاں موجود ہیں اور فیصلے میں صریح غلطی ہے۔
قانونی تشریح
قانون کے تحت تسلیم شدہ ایجنٹ عدالت میں کسی پارٹی کی نمائندگی کر سکتا ہے، درخواست جمع کرا سکتا ہے اور دیگر ضروری اقدامات انجام دے سکتا ہے۔ ایسے افراد میں وہ شامل ہیں جن کے پاس تحریری اختیار (پاور آف وکیل) موجود ہو تاکہ وہ عدالت میں پارٹی کی نمائندگی کریں۔
تاہم، قوانین واضح کرتے ہیں کہ تسلیم شدہ ایجنٹ کو مقدمہ لڑنے کا حق نہیں ہے۔ مقدمہ لڑنے کا حق صرف رجسٹرڈ وکیل کو حاصل ہے۔
عدالتی فیصلوں کی روشنی
پچھلے عدالتی فیصلوں میں بھی یہ اصول قائم ہوا کہ تسلیم شدہ ایجنٹ عدالت میں پیش ہو سکتا ہے، دستاویزات جمع کرا سکتا ہے اور کارروائی کر سکتا ہے، مگر مقدمہ لڑنے یا دلیل دینے کا حق نہیں رکھتا۔
وکلاء کا خصوصی حق
وکلاء کے پاس مقدمہ لڑنے، عدالت سے مخاطب ہونے، گواہوں سے پوچھ گچھ کرنے اور ان کے جوابات لینے کا حق مخصوص قانون کے تحت محفوظ ہے، جو خصوصی وکیل کے پاس نہیں ہے۔ یہ حقوق صرف رجسٹرڈ وکلاء کے لیے مخصوص ہیں اور دیگر افراد کے لیے نہیں۔
عدالتی نتیجہ
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ خصوصی وکیل عدالت میں پیش ہو سکتا ہے، درخواست جمع کرا سکتا ہے اور کارروائی کر سکتا ہے، مگر مقدمہ لڑنے یا دلیل دینے کا حق نہیں رکھتا۔
معاملے کا فیصلہ
عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ درخواست گزار نے خود ایک دستاویز عدالت میں پیش کی تھی، جس میں نکاح کی مالیت اور جہیز کے معاملات مکمل ہو چکے تھے۔ اس بنیاد پر عدالت نے نظرثانی کی درخواست غیر بنیاد پر قرار دیتے ہوئے خارج کر دی۔
نتیجہ
یہ فیصلہ واضح کرتا ہے کہ خصوصی وکیل عدالت میں پیش ہو سکتا ہے اور کارروائی انجام دے سکتا ہے، مگر مقدمہ لڑنے یا دلیل دینے کا حق صرف رجسٹرڈ وکیل کے پاس ہے۔ یہ اصول تمام عدالتوں میں لاگو ہوتا ہے۔
Must read Judgement
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No.
Review Application No.18987/2022
in
Writ Petition No.54935/2020
Mst. Sana Aslam
Versus
Ali Imran etc.
S. No. of
order/
proceeding
Date of
order/
proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or
counsel, where necessary.
05.04.2022 Saleem Khan, Special Attorney of the applicant (Mst.
Sana Aslam), in person.
Barrister Tayeeb Jan, Assistant Advocate-General,
Punjab.
This review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1
read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) has been filed by applicant (Mst. Sana Aslam)
through her real brother as Special Attorney (hereinafter
referred to as Attorney) against the consolidated judgment
dated 08.03.2022, passed by this Court.
2.
Relevant facts are that in family matter, this Court
vide consolidated judgment dated 08.03.2022, upheld the
concurrent findings of the learned two courts below and
consequently dismissed Writ Petition No.54935/2020
(filed by applicant) and Writ Petition No.78269/2019
(filed by respondents). The applicant being aggrieved has
filed this review application through her brother as her
Special Attorney.
3.
The Attorney of the applicant insisted that he does
not want to engage legal counsel but will argue the review
application himself. Submits that Exh.P-6 is not a
certified copy of Exh.D-1 or Mark-DA and it also does
R.A. No.18987/2022 in
W.P.No.54935/2020
2
not show that dowry articles are received by the applicant,
therefore, the impugned judgment being the result of
patent error on the face of record, is liable to be set-aside.
On the question that whether Special Attorney can appear
in Court and argue the matter, he submits that being an
Attorney of the applicant he has authority not only to
file/present but also argue this review application before
this Court.
4.
Heard. Before touching the merits of the case, first
I would like to decide the legal question that whether the
Attorney of the applicant has right of audience before this
Court. Order III of CPC deals with “Recognized Agents
and Pleaders”. For convenience, Rules 1 and 2 of Order
III CPC are reproduced hereunder:-
“1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by
recognized agent or by pleader.-- Any appearance,
application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized
by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may,
except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for
the time being in force, be made or done by the party in
person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader
[appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be,] on his
behalf:
Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court
so directs, be made by the party in person.
2. Recognized agents.-- The recognized agents of
parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts
may be made or done are--
(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing
them to make and do such appearances, applications and
acts on behalf of such parties;
(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in
names of parties not resident within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance,
application or act is made or done, in matters connected
with such trade or business only, where no other agent is
expressly authorized to make and do such appearances,
applications and acts.”
R.A. No.18987/2022 in
W.P.No.54935/2020
3
5.
Plain reading of Rule 1 of Order III CPC shows
that a recognized agent can appear, file applications or act
in or to any Court on behalf of any party. Rule 2 of Order
III CPC refer to class of persons, who could be treated as
recognized agents of parties, which include person
holding power of attorney authorizing him to make and
do such appearance, application and act on behalf of the
parties. The words “appearance”, “application” and “act”
used in Rules 1 and 2 of Order III CPC are not defined
therein. However, applying ordinary meaning to these
words, the word “appear” means, to be present and to
represent the party at various stages of litigation. The
words “application” or “act” means necessary steps,
which can be taken on behalf of the parties in the Court or
in the offices of the Court in the course of litigation.
However, the words “appearance”, “application” and
“act” under Rules 1 and 2 ibid do not include pleadings.
Thus, the recognize agent is entitled to appear, file
application and act for party but he is not entitled to plead
in Court. Such right is only available to pleader under
Order III, Rule 4 CPC. When right of pleading is not
available to a recognized agent, it follows that he has no
right of audience in Court, as such right is a natural and
necessary concomitant of the right to plead.
6.
The learned Division Bench in the case of JOGESH
CHANDRA MUKHERJEE (PLD 1953 Dacca 104) held
that “a recognized agent is entitled to appear and act for a
party but he is not entitled to a right of audience”. Same
view was also expressed in the case of Abdul Wadud
versus The State (PLD 1964 Dacca 543), where it is held
as under
R.A. No.18987/2022 in
W.P.No.54935/2020
4
“It has thus been laid down therein that "a recognized agent
can make an appearance or an application or act on behalf
of a party but cannot plead in a Court and that under rule 4
of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure he can appoint a
Pleader but he has no right of audience". This is binding
upon me and I cannot accept the petitioner's contention
contrary thereto that he was entitled under the law to plead
also on the strength of the power-of attorney held by him.”
7.
The right to plead is within the exclusive domain of
enrolled Advocates subject to rule of admission under the
Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 (Act).
The powers and duties of Advocates have also been
prescribed under Volume V, Chapter 6, Part-B of Rules
and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. In the case
of Hari Om Rajender Kumar and others versus Chief
Rationing Officer of Civil Supplies, A.P., Hyderabad
(1990 AIR (A.P.) 340), Andhra Pradesh High Court
while recognizing the exclusive right to plead and
practice by Advocates, subject to law, held as under:-
“11. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the
'practice' before the Courts, Tribunals and Authorities can
be only by advocates and not by other persons unless
specially authorised by the Courts in that behalf. It has to be
noticed that Section 33 of the Act uses the word 'practice'
while Section 32 uses the word 'to appear’ in the Courts etc.
The words 'practice' or 'appear' have not been defined in the
Act. The special significance of the above words can be
understood if one refers to the provisions of Order 3, Rules 1
and 2, Civil Procedure Code Order 3 Rule 1 says that any
appearance, application or act in any Court required or
authorised by law to be made or done by a party in such
Court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by
any law for the time being in force, a made or done by the
party-in-person or by his recognised agent or by a pleader
appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his
behalf provided that any Such appearance shall, if the
Courts so directs be made by the party in person. Order 3,
Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code refers to the class of persons
who could be treated as recognised agents of parties by
whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made
or done and includes persons holding powers of attorney. It
is, therefore, clear that the provisions of Order 3, Rule 1
which permit appearance applications or acting in any
Court are subject to any other law and this includes the
provisions of the Advocates Acts 1961 and in particular,
Sections 32 and 33. It is further clear that so far as the
R.A. No.18987/2022 in
W.P.No.54935/2020
5
signing or verifying or doing other acts are concerned, these
could be done by the Power of Attorney duly authorised
therefor but so far as appearing or practising in Court are
concerned, they are subject to the provisions of Sections 32
and 33 of the. Advocates Act. The right to appear in Court
and plead for a principal as also the right to practice in
Courts have to be distinguished from the other acts, which a
power of attorney can perform under order 3 Rule 1, Civil
Procedure Code. So far as the right to appear and plead for
a principal in Court as also the right to practice are
concerned, these are governed by Sections 32 and 33 of the
Advocates Act.”
8.
The right to audience, right to address the Court,
right to examine and cross-examine the witnesses are part
of pleading with which Rules 1 and 2 of Order III CPC
does not deal at all. These rules are restricted to
appearance, application and acts in connection with the
litigation in Court, therefore, there is no manner of doubt
that a recognized agent or Attorney of the applicant has no
right to plead or audience before this Court.
9.
Though the Attorney of the applicant has no right of
audience or to plead before this Court, however, this Court
has carefully examined the contents of the review
application. On merits I have noted that this Court vide
consolidated judgment dated 08.03.2022 held that claim of
the applicant in the suit for recovery of dowry articles was
that dowry articles are in the custody of the respondents.
In written statement, the respondents claimed that as a
result of settlement between the parties through agreement
dated 11.06.2017, dowry articles were returned. The
respondents also produced an agreement dated 11.06.2017
as Exh.D-1 and Mark-DA. The applicant during crossexamination denied the said agreement, however, in her
separate suit for dissolution of marriage, she herself
produced agreement dated 11.06.2017 as additional
evidence during the appeal, which was exhibited as Exh.P-
R.A. No.18987/2022 in
W.P.No.54935/2020
6
6, to claim that no dower was paid at the time of marriage.
In said Exh.P-6, it was also recorded that dowry articles
were already received back and there is nothing due
between the parties in this regard.
10. In view of above, the learned courts below, as well
as this Court held that once the applicant herself relied
upon a document (Exh.P-6) to claim 50% of dower
amount, then she cannot deny the other part of the same
document dated 11.06.2017 to the effect that dowry
articles were returned and nothing is due between parties.
Mere fact that the agreement dated 11.06.2017 (which was
produced as Exh.P-6), is not the certified copy of Exh.D1
or Mark “DA” but copy of Mark “A”, will not change the
fate of the case, as in Exh.D6 also it is recorded that dowry
articles are received back with no claim outstanding in this
regard. No doubt the agreement dated 11.06.2017,
produced by applicant as Exh.P6, is not signed by her but
under the principle of estoppel when she herself produced
said agreement in support of her claim for dower, the other
part of the same agreement cannot be denied by her, which
supports claim of respondent in agreement dated
11.06.2017 (Exh.D1 and Mark-DA), according to which
dowry articles are returned and nothing is due between the
parties in this behalf. Therefore, there is no error apparent
on the face of record to review the impugned judgment
dated 08.03.2022.
11. In view of above discussion, this review application
being meritless is dismissed.
(ABID AZIZ SHEIKH)
JUDGE.
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
JUDG
For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp
Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.