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.