O. 3, R. 1 - Provisions under – Validity of attorney holder in conduct of case– Legality of - Explained

O. 3, R. 1 - Provisions under – Validity of attorney holder in conduct of case– Legality of - Explained  

The provisions of O.3, R.1 CPC deal with the legal position of the validity of attorney in conduct of cases for a limited purpose and in a limited context. The primary object of O.3, R.1 CPC is to enable a party to perform certain acts before the Court, which he would have been otherwise required to do in person through recognized agent or pleader. The other object is to prevent perpetration of fraud by unauthorized person who poses himself to be the agent of a party before a Court. O.3, R.2 CPC contemplates the persons who are authorized to Act. No unauthorized person can take part in the proceedings before a Court of law. O.3 does not deal with the rights of parties who appear in person in Court. O. 3, R. 1 CPC enacts a general rule and confers only procedural right. There are other modes of appearances, applications, or acting, expressly prescribed by the Code for particular cases, e.g., O. 33, R. 3 and O. 44, R. 1 CPC which, by reason of the words "except where otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force" are taken out of the operation of the general rule to the extent so prescribed. In application for leave to sue as a pauper appeals a recognized agent cannot, therefore, appear.

Case Law:
Anita Sonkar (Smt.) v. Smt. Shakuntala Misra;

Citation:
2014 (2) ARC 47