The Supreme Court in the case S Ramachandra Rao vs S Nagabhushana Rao, the bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed and has stated that Section 32 Of the Advocates Act, 1961 does not create a bar for a General Power of Attorney holder for appearing on behalf of a plaintiff and simply because the GPA was enrolled as an advocate.
In the present case, the main issue arose in a partition suit concerning the capacity in which the plaintiff’s wife, who being the General Power of Attorney holder and also being enrolled as an advocate and she could appear and act on behalf of her husband in the said civil proceedings. Thus, it was held by the Trial Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court that merely for the wife of the plaintiff being an advocate and for her, there was no prohibition in law to act on behalf of her husband as a GPA holder but, it was made clear that the wife would appear in-person as a power agent of her husband and not in her professional capacity of being an advocate. However, it was held by the High Court that in view of a decision taken by the Division Bench of the same High Court, the same was not permissible for a GPA holder for participating in the proceedings. Before the Apex Court, the High Court order was challenged.
It was argued by the Respondent that Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, barred the advocates from seeking permission of the Court and that the said provision entitled only the non-advocates can seek such permission to plead on behalf of any party. It is provided under Section 32 of the Act, that – “any court, person, or authority may permit any person, not being enrolled as an advocate under this Act, for appearing before it or him in any particular case.”
However, it was remarked by the bench that the court are unable to appreciate the contention suggesting that the said Section 32 of the Act, creates a bar for the wife of the appellant for seeking permission of the Court to appear on behalf of her husband in her capacity as GPA holder because of wife being an enrolled advocate. Thus, the enabling provision of Section 32 of the Act of 1961, whereby any Court, authority or person may permit any non-advocate to appear before it or him in any particular case is difficult to be read as creating a corresponding bar in giving of such permission to a GPA holder of a party to represent that party as such, if the said GPA holder, during pendency of the proceedings in the Court and has get enrolled as an advocate.
Further, the court stated that there no statutory prohibition operating in such situation like that of present case, for which the existing GPA holder of a party could not be given permission to appear only as the GPA holder and even if he/she had been enrolled as an advocate.
Adding to it, the court stated while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where the only fortuitous event had been that wife of the appellant, who was already being acting as his General Power of Attorney holder, latterly, took the degree in law and got herself enrolled as an advocate and in the previous round of proceedings, the High Court had cautiously balanced the requirements of law, particularly the requirements of Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Rules of Practice in the State, and the Advocate Act of 1961 as also the rules being made under the Advocate Act of 1961 by specifically providing that wife of the appellant shall appear only as his GPA holder and not as an advocate.
Accordingly, the court allowed the wife to appear on behalf of the plaintiff as a GPA holder
