JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. Background: 1. Savithri has a son and a daughter, Satheesh Kumar and Latha Kumari, respectively. Claiming maintenance from her son, she has filed an unnumbered M.C. before the Family Court, Nedumangad. Savithri's daughter represents her. 2. But the registry noted certain defects in the Petition (Ext. P1) and returned it on 18.08.2016, perhaps, for the party to cure the defects. The defects the registry noted are these: (1) The vakalathnama (Ext. P2) was not attested by an advocate"; (2) M.C., filed by the petitioner's daughter, has no power of attorney attached. 3. Sri N. Satheesh Kumar, Savithri's counsel, has agreed to cure the second defect. As to the first defect, he took a plea that he filed the vakalathnama in a proper form satisfying all the legal formalities under the Rule 27 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1971. 4. But the Family Court's registry has insisted, according to the petitioner, that the vakalathnama does not conform to the statutory stipulations. The registry's stand on the vakalathnama is now challenged. When these simple facts were narrated, we found nothing amiss; it must be one of the numerous run-of-the-mill cases. But it is not. Here the counsel himself filed the Revision; Savithri, the principal, or her daughter, who represented her mother as her power of attorney, is not even arrayed as a party to the proceedings. The Contention: 5. Sri A.S. Shammy Raj, the learned counsel for Satheesh Kumar, has submitted that the Family Court has been inconsistent in its approach. According to him, earlier, in another case, it has accepted Satheesh Kumar's vakalat under identical circumstances. But this time it has taken an obstinate stand. The Court's Clarification: 6. To ascertain the Registry's stand, this Court has called for a report from the Family Court, Nedumangad, which, in fact, has sent one. The learned Presiding Officer, to her credit, has sent a report setting out in detail on what, in her view, is a non-issue. It seems to us, too, to be so. The Report: 7. The learned Presiding Officer has averred that the Court has not at all ordered the unnumbered M.C., to be returned; in fact, the counsel himself took it as if he had intended to cure the defects. It seems to us, too, to be so. The Report: 7. The learned Presiding Officer has averred that the Court has not at all ordered the unnumbered M.C., to be returned; in fact, the counsel himself took it as if he had intended to cure the defects. The learned Presiding Officer has also felt that had the counsel cured the second defect, the Court would have numbered the case. She did concede that the counsel filed the vakalath duly complying with Rule 27(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice. Refuting the petitioner's allegation on the registry's inconsistency, the Presiding Officer has asserted that the same counsel's vakalath getting accepted in another case has no parallels to the case on hand: that was entirely under different circumstances. Rule 27 of the CRP: 8. Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with the method and manner of a counsel's presenting a vakalathnama. Sub-rule (1) of that Rule mandates that every vakalath, subject to exceptions, must be in Form No. 12. It may authorize the pleader to appear in all execution and miscellaneous proceedings in the suit or matter, even after a decree or order is passed in the proceedings. Procedurally, (1) the pleaders' name shall be inserted in the vakkalath before it is executed; (2) it shall be dated during its execution and acceptance; and (3) its execution shall be attested by any of the following officials: (a) a judicial officer, (b) a District Registrar or a Sub-Registrar, (c) the Chief Ministerial Officer of a Civil or Criminal Court in the State of Kerala, (d) a Member of Parliament or of the Legislature of any State in India, (e) the Chairman, Executive Authority, or a member of any Municipal Council or Corporation, or other local authority in India, (f) a Village Officer, (g) a Gazetted Officer in the service of the Central Government or of any State in India, (h) a Commissioned Officer in the Defence Forces of India, (i) an Ambassador or Envoy duly accredited by or to the Central Government, (j) or a pleader other than the pleader accepting the vakkalath. 9. The proviso to Sub-rule (1) adds that any other person may attest the vakalath if the pleader accepting the brief knows the client personally and if the client signs the vakalath in the pleader's presence -with the pleader's endorsement that he knows the client. 10. 9. The proviso to Sub-rule (1) adds that any other person may attest the vakalath if the pleader accepting the brief knows the client personally and if the client signs the vakalath in the pleader's presence -with the pleader's endorsement that he knows the client. 10. Precedentially, this Court in Balachandran S. v. N. Krishnamoorthy 2009(1) KLT 975 has interpreted Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The learned Division Bench has held that the language of Rule 27(1) does not admit of any doubt. The pleader accepting the Vakkalath cannot attest the Vakkalath despite his knowing the executant and making an endorsement to that effect on the Vakkalath. The Court, in fact, emphasized that executing and accepting Vakkalath, though a routine matter in pleader's offices, is a solemn act. Can a Counsel File Judicial Proceedings On His Own? 11. Given the fair stand taken by the Presiding Officer that the counsel took back the case bundle without her knowledge and that only the second defect needs to be cured, we would have closed the case at the threshold. But, here, we have noticed that the counsel who accepted the vakalath himself filed this OP FC. We have felt it apt to have a word on this phenomenon. 12. If we do not dismiss them as mere shibboleths or cliches, well established are these legal concepts: a counsel is not a mouthpiece, much less a mercenary, of his client. He owes his first duty to the Court as its officer-to assist it in the fairest manner possible. He does act as his client's agent, for the term 'vakalathnama' connotes the same semantic sense. It is an Urdu term for a written authority empowering a legal practitioner to act and plead on the litigant's behalf, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, The Major Law Lexicon (India: Butterworths Wadhwa, 4th Ed. 2010, Vol. 6), 7050. Section 2 (u) of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act inclusively defines vakalathnama: a memorandum of appearance or any other document by which an advocate is empowered to appear or plead before any court, tribunal, or other authority. The proximate English term could be 'power of attorney', a special one at that. 13. At the heart of many debates over legal ethics is the lawyer's role. For some commentators, the notion of partisanship is central to that role. The proximate English term could be 'power of attorney', a special one at that. 13. At the heart of many debates over legal ethics is the lawyer's role. For some commentators, the notion of partisanship is central to that role. The lawyer must show 'hyper-zeal' in pursuing a client's case, even if that means acting in a way that might otherwise appear unethical. For such commentators, it is the lawyer's duty to do everything that he or she can for the client. For others, the lawyer has commitments to the overall legal system, and to moral principles generally; this view severely restricts the extent to which a lawyer can exercise hyper-zeal. The debate between these perspectives is reflected in the debates over a large number of ethical issues the lawyers face, [Jonathan Herring, Legal Ethics (Oxford UP, 2014) 28-29]. 14. The Advocate owes a very substantial duty to the person who puts his life, liberty, finances, reputation, or general happiness into his hands. The advocate must 'make every honest endeavour' to do what will be in his discretion most advantage to his client. He has a professional duty 'to promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means his lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including his professional client or fellow members of the legal profession)', so states the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (para 207), David Panik, Advocate (Oxford UP, 1992) 90 15. But the concept of hyper-zeal is not widely shared. David Panick in his Advocate, [Id, pp.105-106 (internal quotes omitted)], quoting from eclectic sources, says that the lawyer has important responsibilities to the court as well as to his client. Chief Justice Burger of the US Supreme Court has rightly criticized 'cynics who view the lawyer much as the ''hired gun'' of the Old West. The advocate is more than a mouthpiece. As Mr. Justice Blackburn explained, 'few counsel... would accept a brief on [such] terms.' He 'owes allegiance to a higher cause.' 16. The nature of the advocate's duty to the court, David Panick, Id continues, has been variously described by judges over the decades. The advocate is more than a mouthpiece. As Mr. Justice Blackburn explained, 'few counsel... would accept a brief on [such] terms.' He 'owes allegiance to a higher cause.' 16. The nature of the advocate's duty to the court, David Panick, Id continues, has been variously described by judges over the decades. He is, thought Lord Justice Singleton, 'a helper in the administration of justice' whose task it is to assist in reaching 'a proper result in the dispute between the parties'. He has, according to Lord Pearce, a duty to use the weapons of advocacy 'in the pursuit of justice and to elucidate the truth in the public interest with an approach which is as biased in favour of his client's contentions as public considerations allow.' For Lord Langdale, the 'zeal and arguments of every counsel, knowing what is due to himself and his honourable profession, are qualified not only by considerations affecting his own character as a man of honour, experience and learning, but also by considerations affecting the general interests of justice'. Chief Justice Cardozo believed that the advocate has been received into that ancient fellowship for something more than private gain. He becomes an officer of the court and, like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. Because (according to Lord Upjohn) 'the courts rely on the integrity and fairness of counsel in the presentation of the case there is, for Sir John Donaldson, a 'requirement of absolute probity' imposed on advocates in the public interest. For all these reasons, Lord Morris concluded that 'to a certain extent every advocate is an amicus curiae [friend of the court.] 17. The world has its fling at lawyers sometimes, but its very denial is an admission, said Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in his address to a Bar Association: "It feels, what I believe to be the truth, that of all secular professions this has the highest standard breds.", Fred R. Shapiro, The Oxford Dictionary of Legal Quotations (New York: OUP, 1993) 272 18. In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291 , the Supreme Court exhorted the legal professionals: Be it remembered that the central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, (1976) 2 SCC 291 , the Supreme Court exhorted the legal professionals: Be it remembered that the central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. If the practice of law is thus a public utility of great implications and a monopoly is statutorily granted by the nation, it obligates the lawyers to observe scrupulously those norms which make him worthy of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of justice-social justice. It warns that law is no trade, briefs no merchandise. 19. True, a counsel is his client's agent, and the vakalath is his authorization; he can plead for the client. But can he supplant the client? Can he himself be the party-an aggrieved one, at that-in his client's cause? 20. An agent can act for his principal; for example, he can as well sue on his behalf. But the agent must, first, array the principal as a party to the proceedings and, then, represent him as his agent. Similarly, he can depose on his principal's behalf. His testifying is limited to the issues within his personal knowledge. So, the agent can represent and supplement his principal, but he cannot replace or supplant the principal. 21. In Balachandran, too, the counsel carried the proceedings in his own name. But the issue whether he could sue on his own in a case initiated by his client has gone sub silentio. 22. It needs no much cogitation on our part to hold that a counsel cannot carry legal proceedings in his own name in a case initiated by his client. This proposition, however, needs to be qualified. If the counsel is aggrieved and, even in a cause imitated by his client, if he has an independent cause of action, he can sue in his own name. 23. The facts examined, we realize the party gave vakalath to the counsel. The counsel filed it before the court along with the case papers. The objection concerns what is said to be a defective presentation of vakalath-attestation. 24. So, we reckon, had the registry refused to register or number a case because of a defect in the case presentation, that refusal would have been challenged by the party alone. On the other hand, if the defect concerns any shortcoming on the counsel's part, he can maintain an independent cause. 24. So, we reckon, had the registry refused to register or number a case because of a defect in the case presentation, that refusal would have been challenged by the party alone. On the other hand, if the defect concerns any shortcoming on the counsel's part, he can maintain an independent cause. Noble as the legal profession has been, the counsel too has his rights; for example, his right to practice the profession-a right sacrosanct and constitutionally consecrated. Conclusion: 25. We therefore hold that the OP (FC) is eminently maintainable. Further, given the note submitted by the learned Presiding Officer, we dispose of this OP directing the Family Court, Nedumangad, to number the Maintenance Case if the counsel cures the second defect: producing the power of attorney executed by the mother in her daughter's favour. Accordingly, the OP (FC) is disposed of. No order on costs. Disposed off