Don't Raise Office Objection About Petitioner Not Signing Withdrawal Memo Presented By His Counsel: Karnataka High Court To Registry

The Karnataka High Court has directed its registry not to raise office objections to the effect that the signature of the petitioner is not forthcoming in the memo of withdrawal if the petition is sought to be withdrawn by the advocate appearing for the petitioner.In doing so the court observed that such office objections discredits the authority of the counsel who appear on behalf of their clients. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav in its order said, “Accordingly, the Registry is directed not to raise office objections to the effect signature of the petitioner is not forthcoming in the memo for withdrawal. Learned counsel is fully authorised to take action on behalf of the clients. Such office objection raised discredits the authority vested on the counsel". The direction was given by the court wherein a memo of withdrawal of a petition was filed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner–one Ashwith Kumar. However, the Registry had raised an office objection to the memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner which reads as—Rectification of office objections raised in memo for withdrawal of WP filed by adv. for petitioner i.e., signature of the petitioner is not forthcoming in the memo.The counsel argued that office objection raised by the Registry would defeat the object and purpose of the duly signed 'Vakalatnama' by the parties authorising the advocates to appear and plead on behalf of the parties.The bench noted that as per Order III Rule 4 of CPC (Karnataka Amendment), a pleader is permitted to act on behalf of a person upon authorization through a signed document in writing. Once the counsel is authorised by a party to appear on behalf of him by executing a signed document viz., Vakalatnama, in terms of Order III Rule 4 of CPC, it empowers the counsel to conduct the case and take necessary steps to conduct the proceedings, the court said. It then said, “In light of the duly signed vakalatnama, the counsel for the petitioner was authorized to withdraw the petition”. Before parting the high court said that as a "directory measure" the counsel can have the instructions in writing from the parties, as observed by the Supreme Court in Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India (1992) that, "a wise and careful counsel will no doubt arm himself in advance with the necessary authority expressed in writing to meet all such contingencies in order that neither his authority nor integrity is ever doubted. This essential precaution will safeguard the personal reputation of the counsel as well as uphold the prestige and dignity of the legal profession". In light of the memo filed by the petitioner, the court dismissed the petition.Case Title: Ashwith Kumar And State of Karnataka & OthersCounsel for Petitioner: Advocate K RavishankarCounsel for State of Karnataka: AGA Tavaresh Naik Counsel for CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER D K ZILLA PANCHAYATH: Advocate Sharanjith ShettyCounsel for THE MERAMAJALU GRAMA PANCHAYATH: Advocate Venkatesh SomareddiCitation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 488Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19500 OF 2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

Don't Raise Office Objection About Petitioner Not Signing Withdrawal Memo Presented By His Counsel: Karnataka High Court To Registry

Mustafa Plumber

Tags