050-NLR-NLR-V-06-AGRIS-APPU-v.-DAVID-APPU.pdf
( 223 )
AGRIS APPU v. DAVID APPU.
1903.
February 11.
D.C., Kalutara, 2,262.
Appeal petition—Petition signed by Mr. Praetor A far Mr. Proctor B—Delegation of proctor't authority to conduct client's ease.
A proctor is not entitled to appear for a client unless he has a proxysigned by snch client, and a proctor cannot delegate his authority toappear in a Court and conduct his client's case to another proctor.
A petition of appeal signed by Mr. Proctor A for Mr. Proctor B isinadmissible.
HE appeal petition of the defendants in this case was signed
by " M. Dharmaratne for Mr. B. O. Dias, proctor, for first
to ninth defendants, appellants ”.
Schneider, for plaintiffs, respondents.—The appeal cannot be-entertained, as the petition of appeal is irregularly signed. Mr.Dharmaratne is not the appellant’s proctor, and has no authorityto do so. Aasauw v. BiUimoria (22 C. L. B. 86); Perera v..MoUigoda (9 S. G. C. 65). This is not a purely technical objection,
' for the Court cannot hold any person responsible in the case ofsuch a petition. The suitor may disavow the acts of a proctorwho was never authorized by him to act for him, and a proctorcannot delegate his authority to another unless he is speciallyempowered.
Weinman.—The petition of appeal is not bad. If Mr. ProctorDharmaratne’s signature is inadmissible, the appellant’s advocatecan sign it even in the course of the argument, Ibrahim Lebbe v.Harmanis (2, 27, Lorenz). [Layard, C.J.—Do you move to beallowed to sign it now?] I would rather move that the appellant’sproctor, Mr. Dias, be given an opportunity of signing it. In theCourt below Mr. Dharmaratne was understood to have the authorityof the appellants to act for them. It is true he had not their prosy,but he conducted their case in the Court below, and acted for themall through. [Layard, C.J.—That was improper.] Strictly speak-ing it was improper, but as he had acted in the Court below withoutany objection on the part of plaintiffs or of the Judge, hethought himself justified in signing the petition for and on behalfof Mr. Dias. I would ask the case be sent back for the defect tobe rectified.
17th February, 1903. Layard, C.J.—
A preliminary objection is taken by the respondents counselto our entertaining this appeal. The appeal is signed by Mr.Dharmaratne for. Mr. B. 0. Dias, proctor, for the first nine defend-ants, appellants. We are bound by the judgment of the Full
( 224 )
1903. Court in the ease of Asmuw v. Billimoria, reported in (2 C. L. R. 86),February it. jj, ^high the Full Court held that the signature of one proctorLaya&d, 0.J. for another was bad, and following the decision of Clarence,J., in the case of Perera v. Molligoda (9 8. C. C. 65), we mustreject this appeal on the objection taken by respondents’ counsel.
Mr. Weinman, appellants’ counsel, has pointed out to us a casein Lorenz's Reports, in which the advocate conducting the appealwas allowed to sign the petition of appeal when the case was beingargued before this Court. He has however very discreetly andwisely not asked us to be allowed to sign the petition of appealnow before us. If he had asked us to be allowed to do so, weshould not have been inclined to grant him permission to sign thepetition of appeal in view of the decisions above referred to.Mr. Weinman has, however, suggested that we should allow thepetition of appeal to be returned to the District Court, so as toenable the proctor on the record, Mr. B. 6. Dias, to now sign theappeal and to perfect it by his signature. He has pointed outto us that Mr. Dharmaratne appeared for Mr. Dias and con-ducted the case in the District Court, and it was probably becausehe was allowed by the District Court to conduct the case onbehalf of Mr. Dias, that Mr. Dharmaratne considered he wasjustified in signing the petition of appeal to this Court. If wewere to yield to the suggestion made by Mr. Weinman, we wouldbe sanctioning a very objectionable practice, namely, the practiceof one proctor appearing to conduct a case for another in thelower Court.
We are of opinion that a proctor cannot appear for anotherproctor in any Civil Court in this Island and conduct the case forhim. We certainly agree with the opinion of Bonser, C.J., in thecase of Letchimanan v. Christian {4. N. L. R. 323), in whichhe holds that “ one proctor cannot employ another proctor toappear for him and conduct the case. If the proctor does notwish to conduct the case himself, he is at liberty to employ anadvocate ”. No proctor is entitled to appear for a client unlesshe has a proxy signed by such client, and a proctor cannot delegatethe authority given him by his client to appear and conduct his• client’s case to another proctor.
The appeal must be dismissed with costs.