AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The party-in person, who claims to be the power-of-Attorney holder of the appellants 1 and 2 petitioners in the Original Petition filed the O.P. for a mandamus directing the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trivandrum to grant permission to Major K. Mathews as pleader for the counter petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl. R. P. 126/97 and to appear to act, to plead and do all other things on their behalf on the basis of the Crl. M.P. filed on 24-6-1998. It is the case of the power-of-Attorney holder that the ' appellants 1 and 2 are employed in Kuwait and appointed him as their power of Attorney by the deed jointly and registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvalla as document No. IV-384 on 14-10-1992. According to the power-of-Attorney holder he is empowered to act, to appear, to plead and to do all things for and on their behalf right up to the Apex Court in connection with their claim of Rs. 9,75,000/- from the second respondent K.S.G. Varghese. It is also the case of the power-of-Attorney holder that he is looking after the interests of appellants 1 and 2 in India. We are not concerned with the facts stated in the Original Petition and also in the Writ Appeal. The only question that arises for consideration is that the power-of-Attorney can appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trivandrum on behalf of the appellants 1 and 2 without there being a petition for permission to appear, plead on their behalf before the said Court. It is stated that the Principal District and Sessions Judge declined to grant permission to the power-of-Attorney holder since he is not a lawyer or Advocate or pleader authorised by the Court on behalf of the appellants 1 and 2. Learned single Judge dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that no specific request is made by the parties to the Court for representing them by a person who is a non-Advocate. Learned Judge was also of the view that for the above purpose a general power-of-Attorney cannot be pressed into service. Our attention was drawn to Section 2(q) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows :-
Pleader when used with reference to any proceeding in any Court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practice in such Court and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding.
According to the power-of-Attorney holder he is entitled to appear as a pleader since Section 2(q) authorises him to appear on behalf of the appellants. It is his contention that since he is appointed as a power-of-Attorney holder, he must be deemed to be a pleader which includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceedings. In support of his contention the power-of-Attorney holder relied on the decision reported in Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdharr Sharma AIR 1978 SC 1019 : 1978 Cri LJ 778. In that case the petitioners themselves appeared in person and sought permission to be represented by another person who is not an Advocate falling within the definition of Section 2(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The short question before the Supreme Court was as to whether a person who is not an Advocate by profession, can be permitted to plead on behalf of the petitioners. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Advocates are entitled as of right, to practice in this Court but this privilege cannot be claimed as of right by anyone else. Advocates Act, by Section 29 provides for such a reasonable restriction, namely, that the only class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law shall be advocates. Even so, it is not open to a party who is not able for some reason or other to present his case adequately to seek the help of another person in this behalf. In the case' before Supreme Court the parties themselves have put in a written representation that the private persons may be permitted by the Court to appear act and plead. The Supreme Court, having regard to the conspectus of considerations held that the private person who is not an Advocate has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court, for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. The Court may, even after grant of permission withdraw it half way through if the representative proves himself to be reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. In the above case the Supreme Court, after noticing all these factors came to the conclusion that the petitioners have a right to be represented on their behalf in a Court of law through a third party and therefore an opportunity to present their grievance through their friend must be granted/The Supreme Court has also made it clear that the permission was granted with a condition that if the latter proves unworthy the permission will be withdrawn.
2. A reading of the above ruling of the Supreme Court would go to show that the parties who are not able to appear before Court and conduct their case by themselves, have to obtain prior permission of the Court for which the motion must come from the parties themselves. Secondly it is open to the Court to grant or withhold the permission in its discretion. Thirdly after the grant of permission the permission can be withdrawn half way through if the representative proves himself to be reprehensible. Fourthly before granting permission the Court is called upon to verify the antecedents, relationship, reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances before grant or refusal of permission.
3. In the instant case the power-of-Attorney holder filed a petition under Section 2(q) and Section 303 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. M.P. No. ...of 1998 in Crl. R.P. No. 126 of 1997 of the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Trivandrum wherein it is stated that the petitioners have executed jointly a power-of-Attorney and registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvalla on 14-10-1992 and therefore he as the power-of-Attorney holder is in possession of all the documents and relevant facts against the respondent in criminal proceedings - K.S.G. Varghese and as such he is competent to defend the petitioners in the said case. He sought permission of the Court to permit him to appear, plead, act and do all other things on behalf of the first and second counter-petitioners in Crl. R.P. 126/97 of the said Court being their pleader on the basis of the power-of-Attorney. We are told that the said application was orally rejected by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Trivandrum which compelled the power-of-Attorney holder to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing O.P. which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. We are of the opinion that the learned Judge is right in his view.
4. At the time of hearing of this Writ Appeal the power-of-Attorney holder placed before us another power-of-Attorney (Irrevocable power of attorney) executed by one T. C. Mathai and Mrs. Elizabeth Mathai, both of them employed in Kuwait appointing Major K. Mathews as their lawful attorney for them or in the names of anyone of them on their behalf in their place and stead to exercise and implement all the powers enumerated in the power-of-attorney deed. The power of attorney was signed by both by Mr. T. C. Mathai and Mrs. Elizabeth Mathai at Kuwait before the officer of the Consulate at Kuwait and in the presence of two witnesses. In our view the power of attorney deed alone is not sufficient to authorise Mr. Major K. Mathews to appear and plead and act on behalf of the parties themselves. The condition precedent is that the parties must file a petition before the Court concerned under the relevant provisions of law seeking permission to the power of attorney holder to appear, act and plead on their behalf in the specified Court proceedings. Unless the application is moved and ordered by the Court the power of attorney holder has no independent right or authority to appear and represent the parties themselves before any Court. We therefore dismiss the Writ Appeal reserving liberty to the parties viz., T. C. Mathai and Mrs. Elizabeth Mathai to move an appropriate application by furnishing all the particulars to the Court concerned and seek its permission to permit the power-of-attorney holder - Major K. Mathews to represent them in the proceedings pending before the said Court. The District and Sessions Judge is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. C.M.P. No. 7047/98 stands dismissed. No costs.