By Dr. K. Shivaram
Ajay R. Singh
Advocates
fiogf49gjkf0d
[ Madupu Harinarayana v. The ld. 1st Addl. District Judge & Ors., AIR 2011 (NOC) 233 AP] A conspectus of Rules 1 and 2 of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2(a) and sections 29, 30, 33, 34 of the Advocates Act, Rule 2 of Rules made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh u/s. 34(1) of the Advocates Act and Code of Criminal Procedure would show that all the pleadings in a proceeding shall be made by the party in person, or by his recognised agent. A party in person, and a recognised agent, have to make an appointment in writing (vakalatnama) duly authorising the advocate to appear and argue the case. Only an advocate entered on the rolls of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, who has been given vakalat and which has been accepted by such advocate, can have the right of audience on behalf of the party, or his recognised agent, who engaged the advocate. Sections 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act make it clear that advocates are the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law, and such an advocate should have been enrolled as such under the Advocates Act. Section 32 of the Advocates Act empowers the Court to permit any non-advocate to appear in a particular case. This only means that any person has to seek prior permission of the Court to argue a case if he is not an advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act. Further, it is an offence for a non-advocate to practise under the provisions of the Advocates Act.
It is only advocates, whose names are entered on the rolls of the State Bar Council, who have the right to practise in any Court. If a person practises in any Court without any such authority, and without such an enrolment, it would be committing an offence u/s. 45 of the Act, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. Therefore GPA Shri T. D. Dayal was not entitled to appear and argue for the appellant. He had no right of audience in the case or any other case.
