Judgment :- 1. The Criminal Revision Petition has not been numbered by the office of the High Court since the office felt a doubt whether the Vakalath of the Advocates accompanying the Revision Memorandum could be received in court for want of sufficient stamps required to be affixed under the provisions of the Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund Act. A question of some importance on the point of revenue that may go to enrich the Advocates' Welfare Fund arises here. The State of Kerala can claim the credit of introducing for the first time in India an enactment to extend a substantial measure of social welfare to the members of the legal profession. The Act came into force on 5th April, 1981 The Government is obliged, under the provisions of the Act, to constitute a fund called the 'Advocates' Welfare Fund" to which amounts received from the Bar Council equal to 20 per cent of the enrolment fees realised by it is credited. Other contributions by the Bar Council of the State or voluntary donation or contribution made by the Bar Council of India, any Bar Association, any other association or institution, any advocate or any other person, besides any grant made by the State Government, would go to enrich the Welfare Fund There are several other items which augment the revenues of the fund. One which calls for mention here is that contemplated under S.3(2)(k), namely, "all sums collected under S.15 by way of application fees and annual subscriptions and interest thereon," S.15 enables every Advocate practising in any court in the State, if he is a member of a Bar Association recognised by the Bar Council, to apply to the Trustee Committee for admission as a member of the Fund, in such form as may be prescribed and on application he has to pay Rs. 200/-in the course of one year in four equal instalments and besides this he has to pay an annual subscription that being Rs 50/-if he he an advocate whose standing is 5 years or more but less than 15 years, and Rs. 100/- if he be an advocate with a standing of 15 years or more. An equally important item of revenue which goes to augment the fund is that provided in S.3 (2)(j), namely "all sums collected by way of sale of stamps under S 22". 100/- if he be an advocate with a standing of 15 years or more. An equally important item of revenue which goes to augment the fund is that provided in S.3 (2)(j), namely "all sums collected by way of sale of stamps under S 22". The Bar Council is authorised to print and distribute Welfare Fund Stamps of the value of Rs 2/-. S.23 deals with the use of such stamps and that section reads: "23. Vakalath to bear stamps: (1) Every member of the Fund shall affix one stamp on every vakalath filed by him and no vakalath shall be filed before or received by any court, tribunal or other authority unless it is so stamped. (2) The value of the stamp shall neither be costs in the case nor be collected in any event from the client. (3) Any contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) by any member shall disentitle him to the benefits of the Fund and the Trustee Committee shall report such instances to the Bar Council for appropriate action." Rules have been made under the provisions of the Welfare Fund Act. These rules provide inter alia for affixing stamps on Vakalaths. R.13 may be read in this context: "13. Members to affix stamp on Vakaiaths: Every member of the Fund shall affix one stamp on every vakalath filed by him and no vakalath shall be filed before, or received by, any court, tribunal or other authority unless it is so stamped: Provided that the court, tribunal or other authority may receive a vakalath not bearing the stamp filed by an Advocate who is not a member of the Fund, if such vaka-'lath is accompanied by a declaration by him that he is not a member of the Fund." Evidently it is the declaration contemplated under the proviso to R.13 that enables a court to determine whether it should receive the Vakalath without the requisite stamp under S.22 of the Act. Any advocate who becomes a member of the Fund is entitled to the rights contemplated by the Act, namely, the amount specified in the Schedule to the Act on cessation of practice He may opt for retirement benefit at any time after five years. It is open to the Bar Council to provide for such other benefits as could be prescribed. 2. It is open to the Bar Council to provide for such other benefits as could be prescribed. 2. The question raised in this case concerns the construction of S.23(1) of the Act. That requires that every member of the Fund shall affix one stamp "on every vakalath filed by him" and further that no vakalath shall be filed before or received by any court, tribunal or other authority unless it is so stamped In this revision five counsel, evidently a senior along with his juniors, have filed the vakalath. They have affixed to the vakalath Welfare Fund Stamp of the Bar Council of the value of Rs. 2/ . There is no declaration under R.13 of the Rules that any of the five Advocates appearing in the case is not a member of the Fund. In fact there is no case that anyone of the five is not a member. The office of the High Court did not number the Criminal Revision Petition taking the view that in accordance with S.23 of the Act each one of the Advocates was obliged to affix a stamp so much so that the vakalath had to bear five stamps in place of the one now seen affixed. Since the counsel appearing in the case did not agree with this view the matter has been placed before us. 3. Art.16, Schedule If of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 deals with the value of the stamp required for Mukhtar-naina, Vakalatnama or any paper signed by an advocate signifying or intimating that be is retained for a party. It provides that when presented to the High Court the stamp fee is Rs. 5/-. Reference in the article is to a vakalathnama signed by an advocate presented to the High Court Order III R.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with appointment of pleader. Sub-rule (i) provides that no pleader shall act for any person in any court unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment. Sub-rule (2), leaving out the Explanation which may not be relevant for our purpose, reads: "2. Sub-rule (2), leaving out the Explanation which may not be relevant for our purpose, reads: "2. Every such appointment shall be filed in court and shall for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be and filed in Court or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client." Therefore the appointment becomes effective when the appointment is filed in court and ceases to be effective when a writing indicating the determination of such appointment is filed in court. Of course it terminates when the client or pleader dies or the proceedings end so far as the client is concerned. R.27 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with the Form and attestation of vakalath Form No. 12 is the form which deals with the appointment of a single pleader authorising him to appear in the proceedings. But R.27 mentions that the name of the pleader or pleaders if more than one pleader is appointed shall be inserted in the vakalath before it is executed. R.17 of the High Court Rules provides that no Advocate shall be entitled to act in any proceeding, unless he files a Vakalath. 4. A brief survey of these provisions indicates that the authority for any Advocate to appear on behalf of his client is the vakalath which should be filed in the case. It there are more than one Advocate appearing for a client each one of them must have the authority by way of appointment by the client and such authority must be filed in court The Civil Rules of Practice as it stands envisages more than one counsel being appointed under the same authorisation. That is only a convenient mode of appointment The requirement is evidently that every advocate who wants to appear for a party must file a vakalath. Therefore when five counsel appear in a case intending to act as pleaders for the client and authorised to do so and they file a joint vakalath it is really a case of each one of the Advocates filing the vakalath. It is not as if one advocate files the vakalath, and the other four do not. Therefore when five counsel appear in a case intending to act as pleaders for the client and authorised to do so and they file a joint vakalath it is really a case of each one of the Advocates filing the vakalath. It is not as if one advocate files the vakalath, and the other four do not. If anyone of the five could act on behalf of the client that is because of the authority conferred on each one by the client. It is only reasonable therefore to conclude that in a case where a vakalath is filed by senior along with four of his juniors all the five have been appointed as pleaders and all five having accepted such appointment it is a case of all the five filing vakalath, no doubt, a joint vakalath. As regards each one of them it may be said that he has filed a vakalath. Of course the presentation need not be by all the five. In fact the presentation need not be by any of them at all Rules enable a Registered clerk to present the paper to the office. Therefore that is immaterial. 5. S.23 of the Act which obliges every member of the Fund to affix one stamp on every vakalath filed by him must be read to mean that there is an obligation on every member of the Fund to affix one stamp if he files vakalath. Naturally therefore in a case where a joint vakalath is filed by five counsel each one of the Advocates, if he is a member of the Fund, is obliged to affix one stamp. It is not sufficient to affix one stamp for one vakalath. Evidently the argument that it is sufficient is inspired by the words "every vakalath filed by him". The emphasis must be on 'every member of the Fund shall affix'. 6. The construction that we have placed on this Section is quite consistent with the object of the Section. One of the main sources of revenue for the Advocates' Welfare Fund is the amount realised by the sale of Welfare Fund Stamps. Perhaps in course of time the most effective source of revenue may be that realised by the sale of stamps under S.22 of the Act. Even the limited measures envisaged for the Welfare of the Advocates under the Act have not been tried in other States. Perhaps in course of time the most effective source of revenue may be that realised by the sale of stamps under S.22 of the Act. Even the limited measures envisaged for the Welfare of the Advocates under the Act have not been tried in other States. The framers of the Statute could not be expected to anticipate the precise extent of revenue that maybe realised under S.22 as also under S.15, so much so, the concept of the Welfare measures at this stage must necessarily have certain limitations. Any Welfare Fund Scheme must envisage and progressively provide for in the long run substantial measures of welfare and social security. The working of the Act for a reasonable interval may furnish a sound basis for planning further substantial benefits to the members of the Fund, not only by way of a higher retirement returns but also other social security measures which could be progressively adopted. Keeping in view that the objective of the very enactment is not to make a profit out of the scheme even to the State or to accumulate any capital fund, the larger the revenue the greater the obligation to suit that revenue to schemes for higher benefits. The provisions of the statute must be read and appreciated in this background. The provision requiring affixing of stamp should not be construed as one would construe a provision concerning a simple measure of taxation. A restricted meaning ought not to be given to the provisions as if we are reading a fiscal statute expropriatory in character. In the above view we hold that each one of the Advocates appearing in the case has to affix one Welfare Fund Stamp to the vakalath so much so four more Welfare Fund Stamps have to be supplied in order to entertain the Revision Petition. Time one week. Khalid J. I agree. The construction that is placed on the section is on the wordings used which alone is consistent with the objective of the enactment. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the well-meant intention of the Legislature. The enactment itself, a novel experiment, a social security measure, has been welcomed by all. I am fully aware that an interpretation of this section was invited to make the position clear so that Advocates are not frequently vexed by the office when vakalaths are presented. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the well-meant intention of the Legislature. The enactment itself, a novel experiment, a social security measure, has been welcomed by all. I am fully aware that an interpretation of this section was invited to make the position clear so that Advocates are not frequently vexed by the office when vakalaths are presented. My purpose in appending this short note to the judgment is to relieve me of the fear-perhaps misplaced - that lingers in my mind of a latent danger to the junior section of the bar as a result of this order. The Bench and the senior Advocates owe a duty to the juniors in the bar. They should be given all encouragements. They are, in fact, a trust in the hands of the seniors. A junior is often elated when he files a joint vakalath with the senior. He gets justifiable satisfaction when his name appears in the law reports with his senior. Encouragement to the juniors by allowing them to handle cases will, to a large extent, help Courts to cut down the pendency of cases. Most of the juniors are competent and will prove their mettle if opportunities are given. That will help to mould their career and creation of an effective second line of offence and defence in the bar. I am sure that the welfare fund will get augmented with juniors' stamps also.