2022 (11) TMI 983 - SC - Indian Laws

Spouse as GPA Holder Can Represent in Civil Proceedings: Supreme Court Decision

S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Versus S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff-appellant's wife, as a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, could represent him in civil proceedings, ... Principles of res judicata - Whether the G.P.A. holder (also an advocate) of the plaintiff can be permitted to act like a counsel and cross-examine the witnesses? - Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. HELD THAT:- Previous order of the HC had been clear and unambiguous that in these cases, wife of the appellant would be entitled to appear only as the GPA holder and not as an advocate. We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the contesting respondent that the said orders by the High Court stand at conflict with any statutory bar or prohibition or they relate to any such mandatory provision of law which is going to be violated. Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that there had been any error in the previous orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018, those orders, having been rendered between the same parties and on the same issue of appearance of the GPA holder in the same proceedings, indeed operate as res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata, having a very ancient history, embodies a rule of universal law and is a sum total of public policy reflected in various maxims like ‘res judicata pro veritate occipitur’, which means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct; and ‘nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa’, which means that no man should be vexed twice for the same cause - It is also equally relevant to reiterate that Section 11 CPC is not the foundation of the doctrine of res judicata but is merely the statutory recognition thereof and, hence, is not considered exhaustive of the general principles of law. This doctrine, it is recognised, is conceived in larger public interest and is founded on equity, justice and good conscience. It hardly needs any over-emphasis that but for this doctrine of res judicata, the rights of the persons would remain entangled in endless confusion and the very foundation of maintaining the rule of law would be in jeopardy. Even if this doctrine carries some technical aspects, as explained by this Court in Daryao [1961 (3) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT], it is in the interest of public at large that a finality should attached to the binding decisions of the Courts of competent jurisdiction; and it is also in public interest that individual should not be vexed twice with the same kind of litigation. As noticed, the Constitution Bench has placed this doctrine on a high pedestal, treating it to be a part of rule of law. It is apparent that the High Court has viewed the entire case from an altogether wrong angle, i.e., by misdirecting itself on the real point for determination; by not taking into comprehension the meaning, purport and effect of the previous binding orders. The impugned order dated 28.06.2019 cannot sustain itself and is required to be set aside. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Capacity of the plaintiff-appellant's wife to appear and act on his behalf as a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder in civil proceedings.2. Application of the doctrine of res judicata to previous orders allowing the GPA holder to represent the plaintiff.3. Interpretation and application of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961.4. Examination of witnesses by the GPA holder.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Capacity of the Plaintiff-Appellant's Wife as GPA Holder:The core issue revolves around whether the plaintiff-appellant's wife, who holds a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and is also an enrolled advocate, can appear and act on behalf of her husband in civil proceedings. The Trial Court and the High Court initially held that her status as an advocate did not prohibit her from acting as a GPA holder, provided she appeared in-person as a power agent and not in her professional capacity as an advocate. The Trial Court reiterated this stance in its orders dated 07.02.2019, rejecting objections against the examination of witnesses by the wife in her capacity as GPA holder. However, the High Court later disapproved these orders, citing a Division Bench decision that a GPA holder cannot participate in proceedings, allowing the wife to act as an advocate instead.2. Application of Doctrine of Res Judicata:The Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata applies to subsequent stages of the same proceedings. The previous orders dated 20.04.2018 and 14.12.2018 by the High Court, which allowed the wife to act as a GPA holder but not as an advocate, were binding and could not be reopened. The Court underscored that even erroneous decisions are binding if rendered by a competent court. The High Court's failure to consider these binding orders and its reliance on a different Division Bench decision was a misapplication of the doctrine of res judicata.3. Interpretation and Application of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961:Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, allows courts to permit any person not enrolled as an advocate to appear in a particular case. The High Court's interpretation that this provision bars advocates from seeking such permission was incorrect. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 32 does not create a bar for a GPA holder, who later becomes an advocate, to appear as a GPA holder. The previous High Court orders, allowing the wife to act as a GPA holder and not as an advocate, did not conflict with any statutory bar or prohibition.4. Examination of Witnesses by the GPA Holder:The High Court mischaracterized the issue by framing it as whether the GPA holder could act like a counsel and cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the GPA holder (wife) never attempted to act as an advocate but sought to cross-examine witnesses in her capacity as a GPA holder. The Trial Court had rightly overruled objections against her examination of witnesses, consistent with the previous High Court orders. The High Court's reliance on a different Division Bench decision, without considering the specific facts and previous binding orders, was erroneous.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 28.06.2019, restored the Trial Court's orders dated 07.02.2019, and reaffirmed that the wife of the appellant could act as a GPA holder and cross-examine witnesses, provided she did not act in her professional capacity as an advocate. The costs of the litigation in the Supreme Court were to follow the decision in the main proceedings by the Trial Court.