Report No. 27
Order III, rule 1
A suggestion has been made that a recognized agent should not be allowed to appear or apply, and that he should not be treated at par with pleaders. No such change is considered necessary. Even at present, the right to "audience" is not, according to the better view, available to recognised agents1-2. See also now the Advocates Act, 1961.
3. Aswin v. National Rayon Co., AIR 1955 Born 262.
4. Harchand v. B.N. Rly., AIR 1916 Cal 181.
Order III, rule 2 and the Bombay Amendment
1. The High Court of Bombay has made an extensive and elaborate amendment under Order III, rule 2, whereunder, persons who can be appointed as recognised agents must be persons holding on behalf of the party either
(i) a general power-of-attorney, or
(ii) in the case of proceedings in the High Court of Bombay an attorney of such High Court or an Advocate, and in the case of proceedings in any district, any such attorney or an Advocate or a pleader to whom asanad for that district has been issued, holding the requisite special power of attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
2. Stated briefly, the effect of this amendment is, that a recognised agent should either have a general power of attorney, or he must be an Advocate, etc., authorised by a special power1 executed by a party residing elsewhere. Thus, a person who is not an Advocate, etc., can act only under a general power. The Bombay Amendment, as it stood in 1930, recognised only holders of general powers.2 Cases arose where non-residents had authorised Attorneys of the High Courts, etc., by special powers-a situation which was not then covered. The holders of special powers were therefore added later.3
3. It is considered unnecessary to make such a rigid provision.
1. As to the distinction between general and special powers, see Vardaji v. Chandrappa, AIR 1916 Born 155 (156).
2. Ephrayim v. Turner Morrison & Co., AIR 1930 Born 511 (512).
3. As to meaning of the word "person" in Bombay Amendment, see Performing Rights Society Co. v. Indian Morning Post Restaurant, ILR 1939 Boni 295: AIR 1939 Born 347 (348).
Back
