Non-Advocate Power of Attorney Holder Lacks Inherent Right to Plead or Represent Co-Appellants Without Court Permission

The appellants (Plaintiffs 1(a) to 1(d) in the original suit CS/31/2019) filed two appeals against orders dated March 9, 2026, passed by a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court.

APOT/68/2026 contested the refusal to appoint a Special Officer to oversee municipal taxes.

APOT/69/2026 contested the dismissal of an application to add third parties—including a former employee, the EPF Commissioner, and the son of a former Receiver—to a partnership suit.

Appellant No. 4 appeared in person, claiming to represent the other three appellants via a power of attorney.

The memoranda of appeal and stay petitions were executed and verified solely by Appellant No. 4.

1. Whether a non-advocate holding a power of attorney has an inherent right to plead and act on behalf of other litigants in a court of law.

2. Whether the Trial Judge erred in refusing to appoint a Special Officer and in dismissing the application for addition of parties.

Order III, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which distinguish between a "recognized agent" and a "pleader," noting that while an agent may appear or act, they have no right to "plead".

Section 2(15) of the CPC and Sections 30, 32, and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which grant the monopoly of pleading to enrolled advocates.

The precedent of Jaymal Thankore v. Gujarat State Charity Commissioner.

The precedent of Harishankar Rastogi v. Giridhari Sharma, establishing that a private person requires prior judicial permission to argue for another, which is a discretionary grant by the court.

The "necessary and proper party" doctrine under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC.

Regarding the procedural maintainability, the Court found that Appellant No. 4, not being an advocate, could not represent the other three appellants as a matter of right.

No formal application for permission to be represented by a non-advocate was filed by the parties, nor did they opt for available legal aid.

On the merits of APOT/68/2026, the Court noted that a parallel writ petition challenging the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's conduct was already pending; thus, appointing a Receiver/Special Officer to deal with the same municipal taxes would be inappropriate.

In APOT/69/2026, the Court observed that the suit was essentially a partnership dispute. The parties sought to be added (EPF Commissioner, former employee, etc.) had no direct interest in the inter-se partnership accounts and were neither necessary for adjudication nor was relief sought against them.

On the merits, the Court affirmed the Single Judge's findings that the sought-after parties were neither necessary nor proper, and the appointment of a Special Officer was unwarranted due to pending parallel proceedings.

Both appeals (APOT/68/2026 and APOT/69/2026) and all connected applications were dismissed.