—Order— This revision under sec. 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) is directed against the common order dated 24-11-89, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in eight complaints, the details of which are contained in the order. 2. It is not necessary to recount the facts leading to this revision in detail. Suffice it to state that Raghuveer Singh and others (non-petitioners no. 1 to 8) filed eight complaints against opposite-party non-petitioner no. 2 in respect of defective photostat machines. The complainants claimed compensation. It appears that on 12-10-89, a power of attorney signed by Shri K. S. Sharma, Advocate was filed in all the eight complaints. The District Forum heard the arguments on the question whether before the District Forum, a party is entitled to be represented by an advocate/lawyer/counsel/legal practitioner. The District Forum by its order dated 24-11-89, held that an advocate/ lawyer/cbunsel/legal practitioner cannot give appearance in the proceedings before the District Forum. Aggrieved Shri K. S. Sharma, Advocate and opposite-party-petitioner No. 2 have fiied this revision. Notices were issued to non-petitioners No. 1 to 8 complainants and District Forum, Bikaner non-petitioners no. 9 (a preforma party). Notices have been served on non-petitioners no. 2 and 4 to 9. Nobody has appeared on their behalf. The petitioners have submitted an appli-" cation that non-petitioners no. 1 and 3 whose notices have not been served, they may be dropped and the arguments in the revision may be heard and it may be decided. 3. We have heard Shri K.S. Sharma, Advocate (petitioner no. 1) and carefully considered the order under revision. An identical question arose before us in Principal, Shophia Girls Higher Secondary School vs. Kailash Chandra Singhal (Appeal No. 45/89 decided on Sept. 29, 1989) (1). One of the questions formulated in the appeal was whether the District Forum committed illegality and material irregularity in not allowing the opposite-party to be represented by an advocate/legal practitioner and that has affected the decision of the case on merits. It was observed therein as follows:— "No such permission was necessary as there is nothing in the Act to show that a party to the consumer dispute is not entitled to represent its case through an Advocate/legal practitioner. There are enactments like National Security Act, 1980 COFEPOSA etc. It was observed therein as follows:— "No such permission was necessary as there is nothing in the Act to show that a party to the consumer dispute is not entitled to represent its case through an Advocate/legal practitioner. There are enactments like National Security Act, 1980 COFEPOSA etc. where there is a specific provision that nothing in the section dealing with the procedure of Advisory Board shall entitle any person, against whom an order for detention has been made, to appear by any legal practitioner in any manner connected with the reference of the Advisory Board. Under the Act and the Rules, made thereunder, there is no prohibition that a party will not be permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner/advocate. There is no bar "Agent" has been defined in rule 2 (b) of the Rules, 1987 to mean a person duly authorised by a party in complaint or appeal or reply on its behalf before the State Commission or the District Forum. This does not mean that a legal practitioner/advocate cannot represent a party before the District Forum by the State Commission. Aid can be taken from the provision contained in O. III, R. 2, C.P.C., which deals with the recognised agents. On the basis of the definition of the agent as given in r. 2(b) of the Rules, it cannot be inferred that there is prohibition on availing of the services of an advocate/legal practitioner before the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be. Sec. 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides that the advocates are the recognised class of persons entitled to practise law. Sec. 30 deals with right of advocates to practise. This section does not confer on a litigant a right to be represented by an advocate. It presupposes that a litigant is entitled to be represented By an advocate and if a person is not otherwise free to appoint an agent, this section will not authorise him to do so. Before the National Commission New Delhi, advocates do appear for the parties. It presupposes that a litigant is entitled to be represented By an advocate and if a person is not otherwise free to appoint an agent, this section will not authorise him to do so. Before the National Commission New Delhi, advocates do appear for the parties. As the main Act does not bar the engagement of legal practitioner/advocates for representing a party before the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may bey the District Forum was not right and justified in not permitting the opposite-party to avail of the services of the Advocate or legal practitioner to represent the case on its behalf before the District Forum. The opposite party had/has a right to be represented by an advocate. It is needless to emphasis that for failure to permit to be represented by an advocate/legal practitioner as desired by the opposite-party, it has been materially prejudiced in defending its case. The first question formulated by us is, therefore, answered in favour of the appellants and against the complainant-respondent." The same question again cropped for consideration in Smt. Beena Gupta vs. Gyanchand alias Gotiya Saraf (Appeal No. 50/89 decided on November 7,1989). It was held that the complainant and the opposite parties both had has a right to be represened by an advocate/legal practitioner. While arrving at this conclusion it may be mentioned that we considered rule 2(b) of the Consumer Protection (Raj.) Rules, 1987, Order II, r. 2, C.P.C. and Ss. 29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Besides, these, we also took note of the provisions contained in the National Security Act, 1980 and COFEPOSA. We may add that there is a specific provisions S. 13 in the Family Courts Act, 1984 which deals with right to legal representation. It is as under:— "S. 13. Right to legal representation ;— Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no party to a suit or proceeding before the Family Court shall be entitled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner: Provided that if the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae." There are no provisions in the Act or the Rules made thereunder like the provisions in the National Security Act, COFEPOSA, or the Family Courts Act, 1984. We have mentioned in the two orders rendered by us referred to hereinabove that before the National Commission, New Delhi, Advocates do appear on behalf of the parties. Even in a recent case Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. The State of Rajasthan (1) the services of the Supreme Court Advocate Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan were availed of as amicus curiae. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the absence of any provision under the Act and the Rules made thereunder debarring representation by an advocate/lawyer/counsel/legal practitioner before the State Commission as well as the District Forum, parties to the proceedings have a right to be represented by an advocate/lawyer/counsel/legal practitioner and, therefore, by passing the order under revision the District Forum has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or at any rate with material irregularity. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to allow this revision and set aside the order dated 24-11-89 passed in the eight complaint cases. We hold that if the parties to the complaints want to be represented by an advocate/ lawyer/counsel/legal practitioner, they will be entitled to do so. As nobody has appeared to oppose the revision, we pass on order as to costs. Order pronounced on January 10, 1990.