AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkatachala, J.—In this appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (''the Act''), a duly stamped memo of appearance, which is signed by Sri A.K. Bhat, an Advocate of this Court, has been filed. It reads:
"That in the original proceeding I was appearing for the petitioner who is respondent herein. I have instructions to continue to appear in this appeal. Hence, this memo."
According to the Registry of this Court, instead of the memo of appearance, adverted to above, a duly stamped vakalathnama signed by the Advocate should have been filed by the Advocate, so as to make it acceptable. Since Sri A.K. Bhat questions the correctness of the said stand taken by the Registry, the matter is before us for orders.
What, therefore, arises for our consideration and decision is whether an Advocate appearing for a party before the Claims Tribunal in a proceeding u/s 110-A of the Act, can file therefrom an appeal or resist an appeal arising therefrom by filing a duly stamped memo of appearance on behalf of such party.
Rule 363 of the MOTOR Vehicles Rules, 1963, enables the Pleader of a party in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal to prefer an appeal therefrom by signing the memorandum of appeal. Explanation thereto states that the expression "Pleader" referred to in the Rules, shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (''the Code''). From Rule 4(5)(a) of Order 3 of the Code, it could be seen that a Pleader appointed to act on behalf of a party in the trial Court, can, on the basis of such appointment, continue to act for such party in the Appellate Court when such case comes up before it, by filing a memo of appearance in that regard. Hence, an Advocate (Pleader) appearing for a party before the Claims Tribunal in a proceeding u/s 110-A of the Act, can file therefrom an appeal or resist an appeal arising therefrom u/s 110-D of the Act, by filing a duly stamped memo of appearance on behalf of such party.
In the said view of the matters, the stand taken by the Registry of this Court that Sri A.K. Bhat has to file a vakalathnama in the appeal on behalf of his client, instead of filing a memo of appearance for continuation of his appointment as a Pleader (Advocate), cannot be sustained and is over-ruled.