(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.221 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.622 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1972 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.3162 OF 2005 Nina Anil Shah ..Appellant Versus Chitralekha Builders & Ors..Respondents Mr. A.G. Shah, C.A., of Appellant in person present. Mr. M.P.S. Rao with Dr.(Mrs.) R.R. Ajinkya & Ms. Savita Sadananda for the Respondent No.2. Mr. N.G. Thakkar, Senior Counsel i/b. L.H. Rambhia for respondent No.3. Mr. K.L. Vyas, Corut Receiver present. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & REBELLO & REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . We have heard learned Counsel for the respondent and the Appellant who is appearing as Power of Attorney of his wife. Considering the judgment of Chagla C.J., in Aswin Shambhuprasad Aswin Shambhuprasad Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel & Ors. vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd., Patel & Ors. vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd., Patel & Ors. vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd., AIR 1955 Bom.262 AIR 1955 Bom.262 AIR 1955 Bom.262 we are clearly of the opinion that considering the provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the right to audience in Court, the right to address the Corut and the right to examine and cross examine witnesses are all parts of pleadings with which Order 3 does not deal at (-2-) all. The learned Chief Justice then has observed as under:- "Order 3 merely deals with recognised agents and pleaders. It does not even deal with the right of pleaders to plead, because the right of a pleader to plead arises independently of O. 3." The learned Chief Justice then further went on to observe as under:- "Therefore, there is no doubt that even on a strict construction of O.3 R.1 apply to the High Court, a recognised agent has no right of audience in High Court, as the right of audience does not form part of an appearance, application or act in order to any Court." . In so far as the High Court is concerned, the learned Judge referred to clause 10 of Letters Patent and observed that the right to act no less than the right to plead is duly conferred upon advocates, vakils and attorneys and the suitor himself. . We are, therefore,, clearly of the opinion (-3-) that the Power of Attorney has no right to address this Court as we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Chagla C.J. 2. However, considering that the Power of Attorney is closely related to the Appellant and the observations of the Supreme Court we grant liberty to the Power of Attorney to address this Court. 3. We have also considered the cause shown for setting aside the order of dismissal. We find that there are inconsistent defence and pleas taken. However, considering that the Appellant has been prosecuting these proceedings all throughout it would be in the fitness of things that the Appeal is restored to file. The respondents can be compensated by way coasts. 4. In the light of the above the order dated 15th January, 2008 is recalled. The Appeal is restored to file subject to the Appellant paying costs to the respondent No.3 quantified at Rs.7,500/- as a condition precedent. Costs to be paid within seven days from today. 5. Office to place the Appeal on board on 29th February, 2008. (-4-) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)