( 323 )
LETCHEMANAN v. CHRISTIAN.D. C., Guile, 3,533.
August S3and S3.
Proctor and client—Proctor giving proxy to another proctor to appear in the
case—Rights of proctor—Civil Procedure Code, s. 27, form 7.
No proctor is entitled to appear for a client unless he has a proxysigned by such client; and there cannot be more than one proctor at thesame time on the record.
Nor can one proctor employ another proctor to appear for him andconduct a case.
A proxy to that effect should not be received in Court'.
If the proctor appointed by a client does not wish to conduct the casehimself, he is at liberty to employ an advocate.
The form of proxy No. 7 given under section 27 of the Civil ProcedureCode, so far as it refers to one proctor appointing another proctor in acase, is not justified by that section of the Code.
GTION on a promissory note against two defendants who
were the makers of it. The second defendant engagedMr. N. D. Abeyesingha as his proctor and granted him a proxydated 18th April 1895, on the strength of which he appeared forhim before the District Court on the 22nd April of that year.Judgment was entered up against first defendant on the sameday for default of appearance. The case against the seconddefendant came for trial on the 4th April, 1897, when Mr. ProctorGunasekara filed proxy from Mr. Proctor Abeyesingha andappeared at the trial.
The original proxy of the second defendant in favour of Mr.Abeyesingha contained, amongst other clauses, the following:“ And I do further authorize and empower my said proctor to take“ and use all such lawful ways and means, and to do and perform“ all such acts, matters, and things as may be necessary in and” about the premises which I, being personally present, might or“ could lawfully do, and if necessary one or more proctor or“ proctors or an advocate or advocates to appoint and again at“ pleasure such appointment to revoke.”
In terms of this power Mr. Abeyesingha signed a proxy infavour of Mr. Gunasekera appointing him “ to be my proctor and“ for me and in my name and behalf before the District Court“ of Galle in case No.to appear and therein to conduct the
" said case,” and in all other respects the document signed pur-ported to be an exact copy of the original proxy.
The District Judge entered judgment for plaintiff against thesecond defendant, and the second defendant appealed.
W. J ay award ane, for defendant, appellant.
Fan Langcnbcrg (with him Sampayo) for plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vidt.
( 324 )
August S3and S6.
On the merits their lordships modified the judgment pronouncedby the District Judge; and as regards the proxy filed at the trial byMr. Qunasekera,—
Bonser, C.J., made the following observations: —
I notice that at the trial Mr. Proctor Gunasekera, who appearedfor the second defendant, filed a proxy for one Mr. Abeyesingha,who appears to have been the defendant’s proctor, for I find filedin the record a proxy: by the defendants in his favour. I alsofind in the record another proxy, evidently the one referred toabove signed by Mr. Abeyesingha, by which Mr. Abeyesinghapurports to appoint Mr. Gunasekera “to be my proctor and for“ me and in my name and behalf before the District Court of“ Galle in case No. (the number is left blank) to appear and“ therein to appear for me and conduct the said case.” This wasqui.e irregular, and should not have been received. One proctorcannot employ another proctor to appear for him and conducta case. If the proctor does not wish to conduct the case bimseli,he is at liberty to employ an advocate.
The irregularity may have arisen from the form of proxy givenin the schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, which states that theproctor may appoint “ one or more proctor or proctors or anadvocate or advocates.” But this form is inconsistent with theplain provisions of the Ordinance (see section 27 of the CivilProcedure Code, and Habibu Lebbe v. Punchi Ettena, 3 C. L. B.84). No proctor is entitled to appear for a client unless he has aproxy signed by such client, and there cannot be more-than oneproctor at the same time on the record.