JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—I have heard Shri Bhardwaj on the question whether he can address the Court on behalf of the applicants without a specific request on behalf of those applicants to that effect before this Court. 2. Shri Bbardwaj read out portions of the general power of attorney executed in his favour, one by applicants Nos 1 and 2 and the other by the remaining applicants. No term of these documents authorises Shri D. D. Bhardwaj to claim audience or plead on behalf of the applicants before the Court. 3. Shri Bhardwaj drew my attention to the provisions contained in Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure These provisions in so far as they relate to a recognized agent, which Shri Bhardwaj claims to be, only enables a recognized agent to act for a party. It does not enable the recognized agent to plead on behalf of a party before a Court. Shri Bhardwaj then drew my attention to the provisions of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which enables the Court to permit a private individual, different from an Advocate, to plead a case on behalf of a party before it, The Court has discretion under this provision to permit a non-advocate to plead a specific case on behalf of a party before it. That discretion is to be exercised only on a request by the party to the proceedings that someone other than an Advocate may be allowed to address the Court on its behalf. So far, none of the applicants have made a prayer to that effect before this Court, though a prayer, on their behalf, was orally made by Shri D. D. Bhardwaj before the Court today. 4. The legal position in this respect has been put beyond doubt by the Supreme Court in its decision in Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and another, AIR 1978 SC 1019 wherein the Supreme Court observed (in paragraph 2) : "Advocates are entitled, as of right, to practise in this Court......... But, this privilege cannot be claimed, as of right, by any one else.......Nevertheless, it is open to a person, who is a party to a proceeding, to get himself represented by a non-advocate in a particular instance or case.......It is absolutely clear that anyone 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......" And, (in paragraph 4) that : "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 get 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.....” (emphasis supplied) These observations make one thing clear beyond doubt and it is this : A party which wishes a non-advocate to represent it before the Court must itself seek the permission of the Court for this purpose. 5. At this stage Shri D. D. Bhardwaj prayed that the case may be adjourned for a month to enable him to take necessary steps. List the case again on August 22, 1991, as prayed by Shri Bhardwaj. Present : Shri N. K. Thakur, Advocate, for the applicants. When the case was taken up today Shri N. K. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioners, prayed that the petition be disposed of as not pressed with liberty left to the petitioners to agitate the issue in the proceedings which are now pending in this Court as Civil Revision No. 166 of 1991 between the parties, I direct accordingly. 6. The order dated July 11, 1991 recorded on the order sheet of this civil revision shall stand approved for reporting and a certified copy thereof may be issued. Order accordingly.