AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.
This is an admitted Second Appeal. This matter is listed today on an Application No. 9198 of 2018 filed by the plaintiff/respondent Smt. Sulakshana
Lal by invoking Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that since she being an old and feeble lady, she may be permitted to present her
case before this Court through her son-in-law Mr. Mukul Sanwal to “appearâ€, in person and “argue†on her behalf under the strength of the
Registered Attorney executed by her in his favour on 08.05.2018 which was registered before the Sub registrar on 10.05.2018. Prayer as sought for in
the application to the following effect:-
“PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept the certified copy of Special power of
attorney dated 08.05.2018, executed by the Respondent No. 1 in favour of her son-in-Law Shri Mukul Sanwal IAS (Retd), S/o Late B.D. Sanwal ICS
(Retd), R/o House No. 204, Sector 15-A, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201301 amongst other, registered in the office of Sub-
Registrar VII A, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi on 10.05.2018 on record, and to permit the aforesaid Special power of attorney holder Shri Mukul Sanwal
IAS (Retd) to appear in person and argue the case on behalf of Respondent no. 1, and/or to pass such other/further order which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.â€
This Court would be adverting to the grounds and the right of appearance sought for by the respondent at a later stage. This Application, as filed by
the plaintiff/respondent is being opposed by the defendant/appellant.
During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant despite having no sustainable right to oppose such application, because this
Court is of the view that under law it is an absolute prerogative of the Court and the party seeking to put in appearance with the permission is to be
granted by the Court or not, but still he supports his arguments and places reliance on the provisions contained under Section 32 and 33 of the
Advocates Act, 1961. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 32 of the Advocates Act only contemplates to
“appear†before the Court, and that too, with a leave of the Court he submits word appear would not include to give power to argue. Section 33 of
the Act on the other hand deals with a right of an Advocate to “practiceâ€, Sections 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the two provisions
reads as under:
“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.
Advocates alone entitled to practice.- Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, on
or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act.â€
Dealing with the respective pleading and case of the parties, Court finds that, these two provisions placed reliance by the appellant, of the
Advocates Act, i.e. under Sections 32 and 33, they are dealing with two independent connotations i.e. “to appear†under Section 32 and “to
practice†under Section 33. Advocates Act, 1961, these two provisions do not anywhere deals with the impact and a situation where the right being
assigned to such person to appear by Registered attorney, to plead and to argue. Learned counsel for the appellant while opposing the application
submits that in view of the authority, on which he places reliance as reported in 2003 (5) AWC 4031 in the case of Siya Nand Tyagi Vs. Addl. District
judge, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad and another, the coordinate Bench of Allahabad High Court, he submits that Allahabad High Court has held out that a
right to appear would not include the right to plead or argue and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance on para 16 of the said judgment,
which is quoted hereunder:
“16. Thus, by virtue of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, a person may appear before the Court in any particular case but for that, the condition
imposed by the Statute is permission of the Court. The provisions confers authority on the Court to permit or not to permit such person to appear
before it. The permission referred above is confined ‘to appear’ and not to ‘practice the profession of law’. The word used in Section 32
is ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. Therefore, the power to permit is discretionary and not mandatory. The provision does not confer ‘right to
appear’ on the person seeking permission to appear before the Court. It is the discretion of the Court to permit or not to permit appearance,
considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case.â€
The judgment was dealing with a concept of appearance by a party under Section 32 and circumstances under which it could be permitted, and the
authority of the Court to permit such appearance or not. It was laying down that used of word ‘may’ is a discretion with the Court to allow
appearance or not and was not mandatory. The High court was ceased with different situation.
The ratio as laid down by Allahabad High Court, relied by appellant may not be applicable in the instant case the reason being the said ratio was
while considering impact of under Section 32 of the Advocates Act when claim of appearance was sought by a person, not given by the party,
Hon’ble Court has held that it is the right of Court exclusively to grant permission to a person to appear. The facts were different. The Allahabad
High Court while dealing with inter related impact of under Section 32 and 33 of the Act of 1961, meant to lay that term “appear†under Section
32 should not be conferred to be understood as to be a right to practice given to Advocate as provided under Section 33, because under Section 33 of
the Act provides a bar to “practice law†without authority of law, i.e. without being enrolled under the Act which means a person not enrolled
cannot practice as a professional and represent other person which could be only under Section 32 of the Act. While on the contrary under Section 32
provides and it confers a power to a person “not enrolled as advocateâ€, and contemplates that a “person in lis may permit any personâ€, which
means its altogether a different right given to any party individual to engage any private individual other then an advocate to pursue his or her case.
But only, rider would be with the leave of the Court. Such a permission under Section 32 to appear has not to be construed as right to practice as a
professional as provided under Section 33 of the Act, 1961.
The ratio may not be of any help to appellant because in the said case the application was filed by a person claiming to appear on his own, and not
by a party to a lis who wanted himself/or herself to be represented by any other person as provided under Section 32 of the Act, and also because in
the said writ petition none of parties to the proceedings before the Court below were joined as party in writ petition.
The present controversy has to be dealt with from other aspect also, this is a Second Appeal in which provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is
applicable. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Section 2(15) of the Code defines the term 'pleader', to mean any “person entitled to appear and
plead for another in Court, and includes an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court.†There is no quarrel with the definition of the term
'pleader' and wherever this term is used with reference to the Code, it will mean as per its definition a professional enrolled as advocate under the
provisions of the Act of 1961. The provisions of Order III, Rules (1) and (2) of the Code read as under :
“1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognised 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 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 Court so directs, be made by the party in person.
Recognised agents.-The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are : (a) persons
holding powers of attorney, authorising 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 the 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
authorised to make and do such appearances, applications and acts.â€
The Court, for which the motion of appearance is sought to be made must come from the party himself. It is then only open to the Court to grant or
withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the Court may, even after grant of permission withdraw it halfway through if the representative proves
himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, reasons for appointment, emergent situations, declining by an advocate to appear; or lack of
confidence by litigant or professionals, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be
gathered before grant or refusal of permission is considered.
There is a distinction with regard to the law which has been laid down by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Allahabad High Court, while
dealing with the effect of Section 32 of the Advocates Act was ceased with the issue as to whether the right to appear would include right to practice
and that too by a person who himself claims right to appear without a motion being brought by a party to the proceedings by filing an application in
support thereto seeking appearance. The said case was not dealing with the issue as to whether right to appear or right to practice would be inclusive
of right to argue or right to plead. Hence, this Court is of the view that once Section 32 of the 1961 Act has laid down an exclusive prerogative for the
Courts to grant a permission on the request being made by party to the proceeding to a person to appear under Section 32, the said interpretation given
in para 16 will not be of any avail to the appellants so far as it relates to the instant case.
The rationale behind it is that when a right to appear is conferred to a person, it always deals with certain contingencies, and unavoidable
circumstance, where appearance is sought, considering the same under which the said arrangement is permitted to be made. For example; in the
instant case, the appellant happens to be an old lady of 85 years age, who in her registered attorney filed in support of the application has submitted
that she cannot pursue her case and thus in this situation in the attorney pleads as under:
“AND WHEREAS due to Executant’s advancing age, ill and frail health it will not be possible for the Executant to travel and visit the office of
the Sub-registrar, Civil/Revenue Court and other Competent Authorities located at Rishikesh, Dehra Dun and Nainital in Uttarakhand to verify and
sign such documents as are or may be required to be verified and signed for management and sale of the said property of the Executant, therefore, the
Executant hereby appoints her daughter Smt. Poonam Sanwal, aged 62 years wife of Shri Mukul Sanwal IAS(Retd.) and her son in law Shri Mukul
Sanwal IAS (Retd) aged 69 yeas, son of late Shri. B.D. Sanwal ICS (Retd) both residents of House No. 204, Sector 15-A, NOIDA, District Gaugam
Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201301, and sons, Nalin Lal, aged 60 years, and Shunil Mohan Lal, aged 55 years, both residents of C-22, West End, Rao
Tula Ram Marg, Delhi 110021, hereinafter jointly and severally as the case may be referred to as Executant’s CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY to
take appropriate action(s) relating to actions relating to the management and sale of land owned by the Executant located in Khata Khatauni No. 167
(1417-1422 fasli) as well as in Khasra No. 165, more particularly, as shown in Schedule No. 1 hereunder.â€
The Authority which has been conferred to the agent of the plaintiff/respondent which in the instant case happens to be her son-in-law to
represent her cause is provided in clause 2, which reads as under:
“2. To jointly and severally look after and manage all the affairs in relation to the property, found necessary and as deemed fit, and represent me in
respect of legal actions, including signing documents and appearing on my behalf, before concerned courts or authorities on my behalf;â€
Hence, power conferred is the power to represent and appearing. In the said clause specifically, a right to represent in legal action has also been
conferred on Mr. Mukul Sanwal, the son-in-law who cannot be said to a stranger in any manner to represent her case. This has to be considered in
the light of physical feebleness and age of respondent. This Court is of the view that right to represent since not being a connotation which has been
dealt with under the Advocates Act would not be inferred as to be an ornamental representation of the persons assigned with the responsibility to
represent the cause of the executor who wants a certain act to be done by him on her behalf. The representation herein would include to defend the
cause on merits also it does not mean to be merely a silent observer. Hence, this Court is of the view that under the strength of the attorney, a right to
pursue the litigation since has been conferred to the applicant, the same cannot be circumscribed by an issues which are not dealt with in the authority
as relied by the learned counsel for the appellants.
The learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 1969 0 JLJ 250 in the case of Vidyawati Vs. Fattilal
which is a judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was dealing with the provisions contained under
Order 3 Rules 1 and 4, which too was dealing with a right to plead and to appear. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
defendants/appellants has placed reliance on paras 8 and 9 of the said judgment which read as under:
“8. In Ebrahim Saleji v. Johurmull Khemka A I R 1916 Cal. 181. decided by Jenkins C. J. and Chatterjea J., it was laid down that a recognised
agent as such had no right of audience.
The decision was followed by Suckland J. in In re Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation, Ltd. ILR 61 Cal.
In the words of the learned Judge:
“To plead is not to make or do an appearance, or an application or an act and is not in my judgment within the order and rules cited. I am glad to
find that in this matter I am supported by so high an authority as the late Sir Lawrence Jenkins C. J., who held that a recognised agent as such has no
right of audience.
It was, therefore, held that one of the Directors of a Company, who claimed a right of audience on behalf of the Company on the strength of a power-
of-attorney authorizing him 'to appear for and on behalf of the Company, to conduct and represent the Company in the proceedings etc., etc.,' had no
right of audience.
In Jiwanlal v. Property of Ram Ratan A I R 1936 Oud 261 : I L R 12 Luck. 123. one of the appellants applied that his special agent be allowed to
argue the appeal on his behalf. The learned Judges rejected the prayer holding that the words in rule 1 of Order III meant no more than that the
recognised agent could appear, make applications and take such steps as might be necessary in the course of the litigation for the purpose of the case
of his principal but that could not justify a recognised agent being allowed to argue and plead.â€
A reference is necessarily required to be made to para 11 also of the said authority which reads as under:
“11. In Governor-General in Council v. Bhagwan Sahai AIR 1948 EP 61 at 63. Teja Singh J. said:
“........'pleading' is quite different from 'acting' and since the law allows a recognised agent to act, he has no right to plead on behalf of his
principal.
The learned Judge further observed-
“The reasons why 'pleading' stands on a different footing from 'acting' are given in the cases mentioned above and the most important of them is
that it is regarded as a special privilege of pleaders and the intention of the Legislature appears to be that they should not be usurped by private
persons.â€
It has rather drawn a distinction between the impact of “pleading†and the Act of “appearing†or acting on behalf of the executor for a
document as conferred to the recognized agent.
It would not be out of context to deal with the judgment relied by the counsel for the defendants reported in 1978(2) SCC 165 in Harishankar
Rastogi Vs. Girdhari Sharma and Another. Though this case was arising of the proceedings under the procedure laid under the Code of Civil
Procedure, but still it would be relevant so far it postulates the authority that the appearance may not be as of right but it would be as a privilege which
could be given only with leave of the Court. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the said judgment read as under:
“2. Advocates are entitled as of right to practise in this Court (Section 30(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961). But, this privilege cannot be claimed as
of right by any one else. While it is true that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practise any profession, it is open to the State to
make a law imposing, in the interest of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right. The Advocates Act, by Section 29,
provides for such a reasonable restriction, namely, that the only class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law shall be advocates. Even so,
is it not open to a party who is unable for some reason or other to present his case adequately to seek the help of another person in this 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 a
sophisticated nature. That is precisely why legislative policy has taken care to provide for such contingencies. Sections 302, 303 and 304 of the
Criminal Procedure Code are indicative of the policy of the legislature. I do not think that in this Court we should totally shut out representation by any
person other than the party himself in situations where an advocate is not appearing for the party. 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 may appear through
advocates, and where they are not represented by one such, through some chosen friend. Such other person cannot practise the profession of
habitually representing parties in court. If a non-advocate specialises in practising in court, professionally he will be violating the text of the interdict in
the Advocates Act. I cannot allow him to do so. Nevertheless, it is open to a person, who is party to a proceeding, to get himself represented by a
non-advocate in a particular instance or case. Practising 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. In the present instance, permission is sought for representation through a non-
advocate. It is absolutely clear that any one who is not an advocate, cannot, as of right, force himself into this Court and claim to plead for another.
Permission may, however, be granted by this Court taking the justice of the situation and several other factors into consideration for such non-
professional representation. This approach accords with the policy of the Criminal Procedure Code (I am concerned with a criminal proceeding here)
as spelt out in Section 2(q). A pleader, by definition, includes any person other than one authorised by law to practise in a court if he is appointed with
the permission of the court, to act in a particular proceeding. This Court's power may well be exercised in regulating audience before it in tune with
the spirit of Section 2(q) of the Code.
Having regard to this conspectus of considerations I hold that a private person, who is not an advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to
argue for a party. He must pet 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, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other
circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. In the present case I have noticed the petitioner and his friend who is to
represent him, come together with mutual confidence. The party somehow has not shown sufficient confidence in advocates he has come by. This
bodes ill for him. I should have suspected the association of the private person as having sinister implication of exploitation of a guideless party but
suspicion by itself should not be the basis of a conclusion. Therefore, I think it right to give the party, who appears to be unable to represent his own
case, an opportunity to present his grievance through his friend. That friend, judging by the note prepared and put in, seems to be familiar with law,
although quacks can prove fatal friends. I grant the petitioner permission to be represented by a private person as prayed for, with the condition that if
this latter proves unworthy, the permission will be withdrawn.â€
The Bombay High Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2003 Bombay 15 in the case of Sanjay R. Kothari and another Vs.South Mumbai
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others held as under:
“20. The term 'appearance' is explained aptly by Benson, J., in Seely V Evans (1838) 19 Wendell 459 (Referred to in Sanjiva Row's The
Advocates Act and The Legal Practitioners Act"" 5th Edition at Page 95) thus : ""The word must always be understood in reference to the particular
subject matter to which it relates and the purpose or end to be answered by the appearance has an important bearing in determining what is sufficient
to constitute appearance in particular case."" The expression 'to appear' used in Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 must be understood accordingly. Unless
the phrase ""to appear"" appearing in the aforesaid Rules is given wider interpretation to include the right to act, appear and plead, the appearance
contemplated in the Rules may be ineffective arid purpose of appearance through authorised agent may be frustrated. Sub-rule (7) contemplates
appearance of the parties and their authorised agents on the date/dates of hearing and non-appearance on such date may entail dismissal of complaint
in default or an ex-parte order or decision on merits, as the case may be. Significantly neither the Act nor the Rules speak about right of advocates
enrolled under the provisions of the Advocates Act for the parties before the Consumer Forum. However, undoubtedly, the rights of advocates ""to
appear"" even before the Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission flow from the statute, viz. Advocates Act and an advocate
cannot be deprived of such right, though Section 30 of Advocates Act has not come into force yet is still regulated by Section 14 of Bar Councils Act,
1926.
The party before the Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate. If the party before the Consumer
Forum/State Commission does not engage an advocate, it has to appear before the Consumer Forum on date/dates of hearing either in person or
through its authorised agents. If the party or authorised agent fails to appear, the Consumer Forum/State Commission is empowered to either dismiss
the complaint for default or decide it on merit and in the absence of opposite party or its authorised agent decide the complaint ex parte. If the
aggrieved complainant has launched complaint without assistance of anyone - lawyer or non-lawyer, then no difficulty arises. But where the aggrieved
complainant or opposite party is represented through authorised agent, unless such authorised representative is able to participate in the proceedings
meaningfully, the appearance of a party through authorised representative is of no avail.
The Act of 1986 is a special piece of legislation for the better protection of the interests of consumers. In District Fora, State Commission and the
National Commission, extensive participation is given to non-legal or non-judicial persons to be members of the District Fora, State Commission or
National Commission. The Act has been enacted to give succour and relief to the affected or aggrieved consumers quickly with nil or no expense.
The Forum created under the Act of 1986 is uninhabited by the requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of court-civil or criminal. Complaint
need not necessarily be filed by the consumer himself; any recognised consumer's association can espouse his cause. Where a large of consumers
have a similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. Even the Central Government or State Government can act on his/their
behalf. Mere physical presence, in our view, is not contemplated under Sub-rule (7) of Rules 4 and 8 and such restrictive meaning shall not be
consistent with the objectives of the Act of 1986. Wider meaning must be given to the expression ""to appear"" in reference to the language of Sub-rule
(7) of Rules 4 and 8. ""The right to appear"", therefore includes right of addressing the Court, examining, cross-examining witnesses, oral submissions
etc.
If we accept the submission of Mr. Singhvi that ""to appear"" mean only physical presence before the Consumer Forum for the purposes of filing
complaint, appeal, or reply on behalf of the party, it would create a very strange situation before the Consumer Forum/State Commission. If an
authorised agent alone appears on the date/dates of hearing, neither the hearing will proceed further nor the consumer forum will be able to either
dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit or decide it ex parte. Consider situation like this; Section 12 of the Act of 1986 permits the
aggrieved consumer to file complaint through recognised consumer association. In the complaint, consumer association appears through its office
bearer as its recognised agent. Does the law i.e. Act of 1986 and Rules of 2000 compel such complainant-association who is espousing the cause of
consumer, engagement of legal practitioner to address the Consumer Forum. Answer is simple no. Once the complaint is filed by aggrieved consumer
through recognised consumer association, the authorised agent appearing for such recognised consumer association is expected to take the complaint
to logical conclusion by full participation in the complaint proceedings which may include addressing the Forum, examining and cross-examining the
witnesses etc. Observance of principles of natural justice alone is sufficient in rendering justice to consumers.
The Consumer Fora are expected and rather required to avoid the strict observance of the procedural laws. It must not be overlooked that in
complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the civil court for
appropriate relief.
In view of this, we have no hesitation in giving wider and comprehensive meaning to the expression ""to appear"" appearing in Rule 4(7) and 8(7) of the
Rules of 2000 to include addressing the Court, examining and cross-examining witnesses etc. We are of the considered view in the light of statutory
provisions like Section 2(1)(b)(ii) and Section 12 of the Act of 1986 and Rules 4(7) and 8(7) of Rules of 2000 that right of audience inheres in favour
of authorised agents of the parties to the proceedings before District Consumer Forum and State Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in
conflict with the provisions of Advocates Act.
Mr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the State Bar Council placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Aswin
Shambhuprasad Patel and Ors. (supra). The ratio laid down in this judgment of the Bombay High Court was thereafter reiterated in the case of Oil
and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. AIR 1993 Bom 217 and also in the case of Smt. Saraswati v. Tulsi Ram Seth and Ors.,
AIR 1971 Delhi 110. This Court in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel and Ors. (supra), while considering the provisions of Order III, Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure in paras 2 and 3 held thus:
..... .. It is to be noted that this rule merely deals with an appearance, application or act in or to any Court and such an appearance, application or
act may be done (1) by the party in person (2) by his recognised agent, and (3) by a pleader, it should also be noted that this rule does not apply where
a law for the time being in force otherwise expressly provides. Therefore it would be competent for a law for the time being in force to provide in
respect of recognised agents and pleaders differently from what is provided under Order III, Rule 1 . Then Rule 2 defines recognised agents and
under Clause (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such
parties, are considered as recognised agents under Order III, Rule 2(a), has been named by our High Court and the amended rule requires that a
recognised agent must hold a general power-of-attorney in order that he should be entitled to act under Order III. An exception is made in the case of
an attorney of the High Court or an advocate in whose case a general power-of-attorney is not necessary, but a special power of attorney would do.
(3) The contention put forward by Mr. Bengeri before me is that ""pleading"" is included in the expression ""appearance, application or act in or to any
Court."" In my opinion, it is clear that ""pleading"" would not be included in any of these expressions. The right of audience in Court, the right to address
the court, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, are all pans of pleading with which Order III does not deal at all. It deals with restricted
class of acts in connection with the litigation in Court and it is with regard to that restricted class of act that Order III permits recognised agents to be
appointed........."".
There cannot be any dispute over the proposition laid down by this Court in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel and others (supra). However, as
observed earlier, the expression ""to appear"" or ""appearance"" must be understood in reference to a particular subject matter to which it relates. This
Court in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel interpreted the expression ""appearance with reference to Order III, Rule 1 in the Code of Civil
Procedure while dealing with a Civil Revision Application. We are afraid, the meaning given to the expression ""appearance"" in the judgment of Aswin
Shambhuprasad Patel cannot be applied to proceedings before the Consumer Forum which is not a Court under the ordinary civil law. The provisions
of the Civil Procedure Code, except for the limited purpose as contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 30 are not applicable to the District
Consumer Forum/State Commission. The proceedings before such Consumer Forum cannot be permitted to be formalised like proceedings before
Civil Court. In construing an expression occurring in a particular Act or Rules, one has to bear in mind the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder and the purpose for which enactment was brought into existence. It is sometimes dangerous to construe the language of one Act having
regard to the construction placed by the Court on the language of another enactment. In view thereof, the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Smt. Saraswati (supra) relied upon by Mr. Singhvi would not be of much help.
Mr. Singhvi, while interpreting the expression ""to appear"" also invited our attention to the definition of ""agent"" as defined under Clause (b) of
Section 2 and submitted that an authorised agent is only allowed to file complaint, appeal or reply on behalf of the party before, the State Commission
or District Forum. He further submitted that in view of definition of ""agent"", wider meaning cannot be given to the expression ""to appear"" in Sub-
section (7) of Rules 4 and 8. We find it difficult to agree with Mr. Singhvi. The word ""present"" is synonym of 'represent' and we are of the view that it
cannot be given concise and restrictive meaning to ""only file"". A person authorised by a party to present any complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf
before the State Commission or District Forum would, in our opinion, means to represent the party before the Consumer Forum which would include
participation in the proceedings at all stages necessary for obtaining appropriate order from such Forum.â€
Thus, this Court is of the view that to give a logical and rationale interpretation to the term appear, the expression to appear would include in it the
right to argue, examine, cross examine, make oral submissions etc. It has provided that right to appear to an agent under an authority executed by
party seeking appearance in a particular contingency, to protect that right of audience by Court of party to proceedings is not deprived, the right of
appearance with inherent a right of audience to authorized person. But only rider is that it could be with the leave of Court only as provided under
Section 32 of the Advocate Acts, 1961.
Hence, the rights to appearance, as granted to Mr. Mukul Sanwal, have got a right to appear and this Court holds that under the Authority, he has
got a right to defend the cause of the plaintiff/respondent. Accordingly, the Application is allowed. The objection as filed by the appellant would stand
rejected.
Put up this matter in the week commencing 04.09.2018.