Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 796 (RAJ)

Surajmal S/o Bhaw Singh v. Babulal S/o Dudaram

2017-03-23

P.K.LOHRA

body2017
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. These sixteen appeals are filed by appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation determined and awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, learned Tribunal'). 2. Out of these sixteen appeals, fifteen are barred by limitation of different duration but for CMA No.2232/15. The appeals are pending since 2015, but in 15 appeals, which are barred by limitation, application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been filed. Office has pointed out many defects in most of the appeals but the foremost common defect in all these appeals is that counsels representing the cause of the appellants have not filed duly signed Vakalatnama/Power of the respective appellant/s. Details about all the appeals are mentioned as infra: Sr. No. Appeal Number and title of case Date of Presentation Defect/s Barred by Limitation 1. 1040/2015 - Surajmal Vs. Babulal & Ors. 29.05.2015 1. Application under Section 5 Limitation Act not filed 2. Application Court fee not affixed. 3. Power not filed. 4. Certified copy of order not filed. 8 days 2. 1043/2015 - Jhumaram Vs. Narayanlal & Ors. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Incomplete page marking. 3. CMA Court fee not affixed. 4. Court feel on application not affixed 5. Counsel not signed on footnotes. 6. Power not filed. 7. Name of father of respondent No.2 not tallies with claim case. 8. Certified copy of order not filed. 15 days 3. 1045/2015 - Devji @ Devaram Vs. Narayanlal & Ors. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Incomplete page marking. 3. CMA Court fee not affixed. 4. Power not filed. 5. Name of father of respondent No. 2 not tallies with claim case. 6. Certified copy of order not filed. 15 days 4. 1049/2015 - Mahesh Kumar Vs. Nathu Singh & Ors. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Incomplete page marking. 3. CMA Court fee not affixed. 4. Power not filed. 247 days 5. 1050/2015 - Jamna Devi & Ors. Vs. Babulal & Anr. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Power not filed. 16 days 6. 1052/2015 - Rahul & Ors. Vs. Babulal & Ors. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Power not filed. 4 days 7. 1053/2015 - Bheema Vs. Ramesh & Ors. Power not filed. 247 days 5. 1050/2015 - Jamna Devi & Ors. Vs. Babulal & Anr. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Power not filed. 16 days 6. 1052/2015 - Rahul & Ors. Vs. Babulal & Ors. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Power not filed. 4 days 7. 1053/2015 - Bheema Vs. Ramesh & Ors. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Power not filed. 39 days 8. 1055/2015 - Laxmi & Ors. Vs. Gopal Singh & Anr. 29.05.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Counsel not signed on list of events. 3. CMA Court fee not affixed. 4. Power not filed. 5. Counsel not signed on appeal papers. 163 days 9. 1139/2015 - Badaram Vs. Jitubhai & Ors. 16.06.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. CMA Court fee not affixed. 3. Power not filed. 18 days 10. 1140/2015 - Hanjar Singh & Anr. Vs. Peer Singh & Ors. 16.06.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. CMA Court fee not affixed. 3. Power not filed. 20 days 11. 1405/2015 - Meeradevi & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Singh & Ors. 20.07.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Page marking on index incomplete. 3. CMA Court fee not affixed. 4. Power not filed. 132 days 12. 1407/2015 - Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. Vijendra Singh @ Brijkishore & Anr. 20.07.2015 1. List of events not filed. 2. CMA Court fee not affixed. 3. Court feel on application U/s. 5 not affixed. 4. Application U/s. 5 not attested not signed by appellant. 5. Affidavit not attested, appellant's age not shown. 6. Power not filed. 49 days 13. 1409/2015 - Ghansyam Vs. Ummed Singh & Ors. 20.07.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. Index page marking incomplete. 3. CMA Court fee not affixed. 4. Power not filed. 257 days 14. 1410/2015 - Smt. Rajeshwari Gupta & Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar & Anr. 20.07.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. CMA Court fee not affixed. 3. Incorrect name of Presiding Officer shown in subject matter. 4. Power not filed. 58 days 15. 1415/2015 - Chetan Singh Vs. Vedprakash 20.07.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. CMA Court fee not affixed. 3. Court fee on order not affixed 4. Power not filed. 36 days 16. 2232/2015 - Rajmal & Ors. Vs. Jeet Singh & Ors. 06.11.2015 1. Power not filed. 3. 4. Power not filed. 58 days 15. 1415/2015 - Chetan Singh Vs. Vedprakash 20.07.2015 1. Application U/s 5 not filed. 2. CMA Court fee not affixed. 3. Court fee on order not affixed 4. Power not filed. 36 days 16. 2232/2015 - Rajmal & Ors. Vs. Jeet Singh & Ors. 06.11.2015 1. Power not filed. 3. Today, all these matters are listed in Defect Cases category and when the matters are called out, no one has appeared for the appellants. It is really strange that all these appeals are lying in defect side for last more than a year and no endeavour is made to cure the defects including the defect of non-submission of Vakalatnama as well as the filing of application for condonation of delay in respect of appeals which are presented after expiry of the period of limitation. 4. Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 envisages right of Advocates as recognised class of persons entitled to practise law. Supreme Court, in the case of N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India & Anr. [ (2012) 4 SCC 653 ], has held that right to practise is not only a statutory right of an Advocate under the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 but it would also be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution subject to reasonable restrictions. Rule 1 and Rule 4(1) of Order 3 CPC clothe the pleader with the power to act in any Court provided he has been empowered by Vakalatnama in this behalf. Section 2(15) CPC defines "pleader", which means any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court and includes an Advocate, a Vakil and an Attorney of a High Court. Section 2 (15) and Order 3, Rule 4 (1) CPC read as under: Sec.2(15). "pleader" means any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court, and includes an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court; Order 3, Rule 4. Appointment of pleader.- (1) 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. Appointment of pleader.- (1) 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. Therefore, a bare reading of Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order 3, Rule 4 (1) CPC and upon harmonious construction of both these provisions, it clearly emerges out that an Advocate or Pleader can act and plead on behalf of a person provided he has been empowered by Vakalatnama in this behalf. 5. In common parlance, the relationship between a litigant and a lawyer is purely contractual and such contract is complete when Vakalatnama is signed by the client and in token thereof signed by the lawyer acknowledging acceptance of the brief. All these appeals are pending since 2015 but the counsels representing the cause of the appellants have not filed authorization/Vakalatnama duly signed by their client/appellants. It is also quite perplexing that in 15 appeals, which are barred by limitation of different duration, no endeavour is made by the counsels representing the cause of the appellants to file appropriate application for condonation of delay. There is yet another aspect of the matter that there is no semblance of proof in any of the appeals that counsels who have presented all these appeals on behalf of the appellant before this Court have represented cause of their respective client before the learned trial Court/Tribunal inasmuch as no memo of appearance has been filed with any of these appeals. Thus, in my opinion, the patent defect in all these appeals is that all of them are presented by respective counsels without there being any authority rendering all these appeals incompetent. A fact of great significance that in 15 appeals, which are barred by the limitation of different duration for last more than a year, application for condonation of delay has not been filed further fortifies the conclusion of this Court that these appeals are filed without there being any authority with the respective counsels. 6. A fact of great significance that in 15 appeals, which are barred by the limitation of different duration for last more than a year, application for condonation of delay has not been filed further fortifies the conclusion of this Court that these appeals are filed without there being any authority with the respective counsels. 6. Vakalatnama, a species of power of attorney, is an important document, which enables and authorizes the pleader appearing for a litigant to do several acts as an agent, which are binding on the litigant who is the principal. It is a document, which creates a special relationship between the lawyer and the client so as to regulate and govern the extent of delegation of authority to pleader and the terms and conditions governing such delegations. Therefore, in my opinion, a petition or appeal presented without any authority in the shape of a Vakalatnama has not been legally presented at all. Passage of time after presentation of these appeals, which is more than a year, has made this Court to believe that right from inception there was no valid authority with the respective counsels to submit these appeals on behalf of their client/appellants. 7. While it is true that Court is not expected to be hyper-technical in respect of such defects/defaults but then if there is total callousness and apathy in this behalf, then non-compliance of Order 3, Rule 4 (1) CPC can certainly entail rejection of these appeals. As all these appeals were filed in 2015 and since then more than a year has passed, I am constrained to adhere to nail studded path of duty in the wake of non-compliance of Order 3, Rule 4 (1) CPC by the counsels. 8. In view thereof, all these appeals are rejected for non-removal of defect/s for last more than a year in the clear nation of Order 3, Rule 4 (1) CPC and barring S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2232 of 2015 all other 15 appeals are also rejected as barred by limitation as well as for not curing other defects. A copy of this order be placed in each of these files.