Power Of Attorney Holder Can Continue To Represent Party Even If She Gets Enrolled As Advocate Meanwhile, Sec 32 Advocates Act No Bar : Supreme Court

A Supreme court bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that Section 32 Of the Advocates Act, 1961does not create a bar for a General Power of Attorney holder to appear on behalf of a plaintiff, simply because the GPA was enrolled as an advocate.  

The issue arose in a partition suit concerning the capacity in which the plaintiff's wife, who was the General Power of Attorney holder and also an enrolled advocate, could appear and act on his behalf in the said civil proceedings. Initially, the Trial Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that merely for the wife of the plaintiff being an advocate, there was no prohibition in law for her to act on behalf of her husband as a GPA holder but, it was made clear that she would appear in-person as a power agent of her husband and not in her professional capacity as an advocate. Subsequently, the High Court held that in view of a Division Bench decision of the same High Court, it was not permissible for a GPA holder to participate in the proceedings. This order of the High Court was challenged before the Apex Court.

The respondents argued that Section 32 of the Act of 1961 barred the advocates from seeking permission of the Court and that this provision entitled only the non-advocates to seek such permission to plead on behalf of any party. Section 32 provides that – "any court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any particular case."

However, the bench remarked–

"We are unable to appreciate the contention which suggests that the said Section 32 creates a bar for the wife of the appellant to seek permission of the Court to appear on behalf of her husband in her capacity as GPA holder because of she being an enrolled advocate. 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 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, gets enrolled as an advocate."

In other words, the court stated that there was no statutory prohibition operating in the 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, even if he/she had been enrolled as an advocate. The court further added–

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where the only fortuitous event had been that wife of the appellant, who was already acting as his General Power of Attorney holder, later on took the degree in law and got herself enrolled as an advocate, the High Court had, in the previous rounds of proceedings, cautiously balanced the requirements of law, particularly the requirements of CPC, the Civil Rules of Practice in the State, and the Act of 1961 as also the rules made under the 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 wife was permitted to appear on behalf of the plaintiff as a GPA holder. 

S Ramachandra Rao vs S Nagabhushana Rao | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 861 | CA 7691 - 7694 OF 2022 | 19 October 2022 | Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose