Power-of-attorney authority does not confer court audience or legal practice rights reserved to authorized practitioners.

A power-of-attorney holder does not acquire a right of audience in court merely by virtue of the appointment, because procedural provisions permit only limited conduct of proceedings and reserve pleading rights to duly authorized legal practitioners. The holder is also not entitled to prior notice before the principal appears in person or through an advocate, since a power of attorney is not equivalent to a vakalat or an independent right to appear as counsel. Drafting, engrossing, filing and issuing legal process for remuneration amounts to practising as a legal practitioner and remains restricted to persons legally authorised under the governing law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a power-of-attorney agent has a right of audience in Court; (ii) whether such agent is entitled to notice before the principal appears in person or through an advocate; and (iii) whether the agent may carry on business as a solicitor or attorney by drafting, engrossing, filing and issuing legal process.

Issue (i): Whether a power-of-attorney agent has a right of audience in Court.

Analysis: Order 3, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure only permit a recognized agent to act for the party in the limited sense of conducting proceedings and do not confer a right to plead. Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure, together with Clauses 9 and 10 of the Letters Patent and Section 8 of the Bar Councils Act, reserves the right to plead and practise in the High Court to duly authorized legal practitioners. A power of attorney does not enlarge the agent's status into that of an advocate or other enrolled practitioner.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative, against the power-of-attorney agent.

Issue (ii): Whether such agent is entitled to notice before the principal appears in person or through an advocate.

Analysis: The claim to notice depended on treating the power of attorney as equivalent to a vakalat or as conferring a subsisting right of audience. Since the agent had no independent right to plead or appear as counsel, the power of attorney could not be placed in the same category as a vakalat filed by a legal practitioner. The procedural rules governing pleaders therefore did not support any right to prior notice in the circumstances asserted.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative, against the power-of-attorney agent.

Issue (iii): Whether the power-of-attorney agent may carry on business as a solicitor or attorney by drafting, engrossing, filing and issuing legal process.

Analysis: Carrying on such work amounts to practising as a legal practitioner. Section 8 of the Bar Councils Act prohibits any person from practising in the High Court unless entitled to do so, and the functions described in the question fall within professional legal work reserved to qualified and authorized practitioners. The Court treated even habitual or remunerated performance of such acts as incompatible with the statutory scheme regulating legal practice.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative, against the power-of-attorney agent.

Final Conclusion: A power-of-attorney holder cannot claim the rights of audience, notice, or professional practice reserved to duly authorized legal practitioners, and all three referred questions were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney authorizing a person to conduct proceedings does not confer a right to plead in Court or to practise as a legal practitioner; those privileges remain confined to persons legally authorized under the governing procedural and professional enactments.

---