Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 198 (KER)

S. Balachandran v. N. Krishnamoorthy

2009-02-26

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, C.KURIAKOSE

body2009
Judgment : Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner is a senior member of the Thiruvananthapuram Bar and he challenges in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Ext.P2 order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reiterating the view of the ministerial side of the court that the Vakkalath filed by the petitioner for one Smt. B. Rajamma who was the respondent in R.C.A.No.47 of 1998 of that court was defective. Ext.P1 is the photostat copy of the Vakkalath which was actually filed by the petitioner in RCA. No. 47 of 1998. Ext.P1 shows that Smt.Rajamma, the respondent in the RCA had executed the Vakkalath in favour of the petitioner Advocate. Ext.P1 will also show that the Vakkalath has been accepted by the petitioner Advocate. The defect noted by the registry of the court is that the Vakkalath is not attested by any authorized person and that the attestation is done by the accepting Advocate himself. 2. Drawing our attention to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice Mr. L. Mohanan, learned counsel would submit that the words "any other person" occurring in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 includes the pleader who accepts the Vakkalath. Learned counsel submitted that the proviso enables all persons other than the persons enumerated under sub-rule (1) of rule 27 including the pleader accepting the Vakalath to attest the Vakkalath, provided the executant of the Vakkalath is personally known to that pleader and the pleader makes an endorsement to the effect that the Vakkalath is executed in his presence. Counsel submitted that there is absolutely no prohibition in the rule prohibiting attestation of the Vakkalath by the accepting pleader and in the absence of any such prohibition it was illegal on the part of the court below to have imported such a prohibition into the rule. Mr. L. Mohanan argued that the words "any other person" occurring in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 can include only "any one other than the pleader accepting the same" would mean that even a stranger can attest the Vakkalath in the absence of the pleader which would make the attestation meaningless. Drawing our attention to rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice dealing with the form and attestation of Vakkalaths Mr. Drawing our attention to rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice dealing with the form and attestation of Vakkalaths Mr. L. Mohanan argued that the said rule clearly provides that the accepting pleader can attest the Vakkalath when the executants is personally known to that pleader and an endorsement to that effect is made by the pleader. Mr. L. Mohanan submitted that the practice which has been followed hitherto in the courts at Thiruvananthapuram is that the accepting pleader himself attests the Vakalathnama and such Vakalathnamas were being accepted by the registry without any objection whatsoever. The counsel concluded by submitting that approving Ext.P2 will result in considerable inconvenience to the members of the Bar. 3. Having considered the submissions of Mr. L. Mohanan in the light of the relevant rules we came to be of the view that there is no warrant whatsoever for interfering with Ext.P2 in the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. On being informed about our view in the matter Mr. L. Mohanan sought for leave to withdraw from the writ petition since according to him giving approval to Ext.P2 by this court will result in prejudice to the Bar. We cannot agree and we are not inclined to grant the leave sought for having heard the learned counsel at length and having been taken through all the relevant provisions. 4. The Civil Rules of Practice have been framed by the High Court by virtue of powers statutorily conferred for the purpose of regulating the procedure and practice in the Subordinate Courts in the State. Part-B of Chapter I deals with appointment of pleaders and rule 27 therein deals with the form and attestation of Vakalathnama. We are extracting below sub-rule (1) and the proviso to rule 27: "27. Form and attestation of vakkalath:-(1) Every vakkalath shall, unless otherwise permitted by the Court, be in Form No.12 and may authorize the pleader to appear in all execution and miscellaneous proceedings in the suit or matter even subsequent to the decree or order passed therein. The name of the pleader or the pleaders if more than one pleader is appointed shall be inserted in the vakkalath before it is executed. It shall be dated at the time of its execution and of its acceptance. The name of the pleader or the pleaders if more than one pleader is appointed shall be inserted in the vakkalath before it is executed. It shall be dated at the time of its execution and of its acceptance. Its execution shall be attested by a judicial officer, a District Registrar, or a Sub Registrar, the chief ministerial officer of a Civil or Criminal Court in the State of Kerala, a member of Parliament or of the Legislature of any State in India, the Chairman, Executive Authority or member of any Municipal Council or Corporation, or other local authority in India, a Village Officer, a Gazetted Officer in the service of the Central Government or of any State in India, a commissioned officer in the Defence Forces of India, or an Ambassador or Envoy duly accredited by or to the Central Government, or a pleader other than the pleader accepting the vakkalath: Provided that any other person may attest the vakkalath where the executant is personally known to the pleader in whose favour the vakkalath is executed and where the executant signs the same in the presence of the pleader and an endorsement is made by the pleader to the above effect". A reading of the rule extracted above will show that it is mandatory that execution of the Vakalathnama is attested by any one of the persons, officers or authorities enumerated therein and the last among them is a pleader other than the pleader accepting the Vakkalath. In other words, the pleader accepting the Vakkalath is clearly excluded from the category of the persons empowered to attest the Vakkalath. The proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 in our view, is an enabling provision which empowers "any other person" obviously meaning any person other than the person enumerated in sub-rule (1) of rule 27 to attest the Vakkalath provided the executant of the Vakkalath is personally known to the pleader accepting the Vakkalath and the Vakkalath is executed in the presence of the pleader accepting Vakkalath and an endorsement is made by the accepting pleader to that effect. If it was the intention of the rule making authority to enable the pleader accepting the Vakkalath also to attest the Vakkalath, it would have been clearly provided in the sub-rule itself that all pleaders including the pleader accepting the Vakkalath can also attest the Vakalaths. If it was the intention of the rule making authority to enable the pleader accepting the Vakkalath also to attest the Vakkalath, it would have been clearly provided in the sub-rule itself that all pleaders including the pleader accepting the Vakkalath can also attest the Vakalaths. The proviso to our mind has been incorporated by the rule making authority in view of the pragmatic difficulties which may be experienced by the litigants and the accepting pleader in having the Vakkalaths attested by the persons enumerated in sub-rule (1) of rule 27. It is by virtue of the proviso only that other persons such as the pleaders clerks and other persons available in the office of the pleader who quite often figure as attesting witness to Vakalathnamas are enable to attest the Vakkalathnamas. Here again the rule making authority insists that when the person who attests the Vakkalathnama is not one among the persons enumerated under sub-rule (1) of rule 27 it is necessary that the party executing the Vakkalath should be personally known to the Advocate accepting the Vakkalath and the said pleader should make an endorsement to the effect on the Vakkalath that Vakkalath is executed by the party in his presence. In the instant case, Vakkalathnama is not attested by any authorised person at all. It only contains an endorsement by the accepting Advocate that the executant is personally known to him and that the Vakkalath is signed in his presence. In terms of rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice which is applicable to the court in which Ext.P1 Vakkalathnama was filed, the Vakkalathnama was certainly defective and the District Judge was certainly right in approving the stand taken by the registry of his court. 5. The position would have been different had Ext.P1 Vakkalathnama been submitted before a Criminal Court in the State. The rule of the Criminal Rules of Practice 1982 corresponding to rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice is rule 32. Sub-rule (1) of rule 32 is a verbatim re-production of sub-rule (1) of rule 27of the Civil Rules of Practice. The position would have been different had Ext.P1 Vakkalathnama been submitted before a Criminal Court in the State. The rule of the Criminal Rules of Practice 1982 corresponding to rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice is rule 32. Sub-rule (1) of rule 32 is a verbatim re-production of sub-rule (1) of rule 27of the Civil Rules of Practice. But the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice is distinctly different from the corresponding proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 of Civil Rules of Practice and we quote the above proviso as follows: "Provided that the pleader accepting the vakkalath may attest the vakkalath where the executant is personally known to him and an endorsement to that effect is made by the Pleader." The above proviso unlike the corresponding proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 certainly enables the pleader to accept the vakkalath where the executant is personally known to him and an endorsement to that effect is made by the pleader. 6. The language of the applicable rule which is rule 27 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice does not admit of any doubt that the pleader accepting the Vakkalath is not entitled to attest the Vakkalath despite he personally knowing the executant and making an endorsement regarding the same on the Vakkalath. We are not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. L. Mohanan that since under the corresponding provision in the Criminal Rules of Practice pleader accepting the Vakkalath is competent to accept the Vakkalath, such a power should be conceded to the pleaders before the Civil Courts also. Execution and acceptance of Vakkalath though a routine matter in pleaders offices is of considerable seriousness. This is why the rule making authority has specifically empowered only the named 16 categories of persons, all of them responsible and respectable in their own way to attest the Vakkalathnamas. Execution and acceptance of Vakkalath though a routine matter in pleaders offices is of considerable seriousness. This is why the rule making authority has specifically empowered only the named 16 categories of persons, all of them responsible and respectable in their own way to attest the Vakkalathnamas. Of course, mindful of the pragmatic difficulties which a pleader who has no other pleader attached to his office may have in the matter the rule making authority has empowered persons outside the enumerated category also to figure as attesters, but that too only in cases where the executant of the Vakkalath is personally known to the accepting pleader and has executed the Vakkalath in the presence of the accepting pleader and an endorsement to that effect is made by the accepting pleader on the Vakkalath. 7. In the above context we will refer to rule 19 of the Kerala High Court Rules provided for form and attestation of Vakkalaths to be submitted in the High Court. Sub-rule (1) of rule 19 and the proviso thereto is almost a verbatim re-production of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice and the proviso thereto. The prescribed form of Vakkalath under rule 19 is Form No.1 and according to us that form is prepared strictly in conformity with rule 19. There is provision in the form for putting signature by the executant and there is provision for subscription of signatures by witnesses and there is provision for the accepting pleader to make endorsement regarding his personal knowledge of the party and the execution of the Vakkalath in his presence and there is provision also for the accepting pleader to subscribe his signature in acceptance. It is Form No.1 prescribed under rule 19 of the High Court Rules which is being followed in the High Court. 8. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. L. Mohanan that the Bar will be put to difficulties if attestation by competent persons other than the accepting pleader is insisted upon. According to us, it is in the interest of the Bar that the Vakkalathnama is attested by somebody other than the accepting pleader. It is said that the greatest trust between man and man is the trust of giving counsel. The relationship between the lawyer and the client has always been considered as a confidential personal relationship of great trust. According to us, it is in the interest of the Bar that the Vakkalathnama is attested by somebody other than the accepting pleader. It is said that the greatest trust between man and man is the trust of giving counsel. The relationship between the lawyer and the client has always been considered as a confidential personal relationship of great trust. But it appears to us that of late, the relationship has become more professional. These are times when complaints are being submitted against pleaders by many a party on valid as well as false and frivolous grounds before the Bar Council and other authorities. It is not uncommon now a days that a party disowns his pleader and goes to the extent of denying even the execution of the Vakkalathnama filed by the lawyer on his behalf. In the event of occurrence of such a situation, the position will be all the more embarrassing for the lawyer if the Vakkalathnama is not attested by somebody other than the accepting lawyer himself. We are therefore of the considered view that it is ideal if Vakkalathnamas filed before the Criminal Courts also are attested by somebody other than the pleader accepting the same. The result is that the writ petition fails and will stand dismissed. Forward a copy of this judgment to the Chairman, High Court Rules Committee for perusal and appropriate action.