1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF COURT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

OS No. 1900 of 2022

BETWEEN
Alappuzha Anantha
Narayanapuram Thuravoor
Thirumala Devaswom Plaintiff
AND
Abdul Rahim @ S. Rahim Defendant

OBJECTION TO I.A No. 6 of 2023

Objection filed by Abdul Rahim @ S. Rahim, S/o Shahul Hameed, Businessman,
aged 46 years. Now residing at Kottara House, Chathanpadu, Konchira P.O.,
Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram-695 615, to the above I.A for Amendment.
1. The I.A is not maintainable either in law or on facts. At the outset, all and
singular allegations, averments, and submissions made in the body of the
Interlocutory Application are denied as if, the same has been specifically
traversed and denied seriatim; save and except to the extent of that which
is expressly admitted hereinafter in the present Counter Affidavit. It is
further submitted that the I.A filed by the Petitioner is misconceived,
frivolous, exaggerated, and vague and a bare perusal of the I.A
substantiates the fact that there is no cause of action against the
Respondent.
2. The IA’s are framed & filed by hooks and crooks and are not at all
maintainable either in law or on facts. It is submitted that the present
petition is misconceived and on this ground alone the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
3. The aforementioned Affidavit was submitted by the Counsel of the party
rather than the concerned party directly. The act of filing of the Affidavit
by the legal counsel should render the Affidavit susceptible to disregard or
dismissal.
4. It is clear that an Advocate, when representing a party, lacks the authority
to file an Affidavit on behalf of the same party. The restriction
fundamentally originates from the roles and responsibilities outlined in the
power distinctions of attorney and Vakalatnama. The scope of an
Advocate’s duties is expressly and explicitly depicted in the power
outlining of attorney and Vakalatnama. The submission of Affidavits is
not an aspect that goes hand-in-hand with the delineated responsibilities.
Any application incorporating the submission of an Affidavit by an
Advocate working in representative capacity, is susceptible to dismissal.
5.The reasons for the same are as follows: The CPC especially ‘Order VI in
First Schedule’ lays down the rules to be followed in the matter of
pleadings. As per Rule 15 of Order VI, every pleading shall have to be
verified by the “party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other
 2

person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the

facts of the case” and the verification shall have to be signed by the person
making it. Order III deals with Recognised Agents and Pleaders. Order III
Rule 1 enables a Recognized agent to make an appearance, application or
act in or to any Court. Rule 2 explains Recognized Agents as “Agents of
parties by whom applications and acts may be made or done”. These are
those persons holding power of attorney authorizing them to make
applications and act on behalf of such parties. Section 2(15) of CPC
defines Pleader as to mean any person entitled to appear and plead for
another in Court and such Pleader includes Advocate, Vakil and Attorney
of the High Court. Rule 4 of Order III lays down that unless he has been
appointed for the Pleader no Pleader shall act for any person in any Court.
An Advocate can only act in accordance with the power of attorney or
vakalatnama and not simultaneously act as both.
6. The Advocate representing the Petitioner is precluded from filing an
Affidavit on behalf of the same. An Advocate, duly authorized through a
Vakalatnama is permitted to appear in court via Rule 4 of Order 3 of The
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the Advocate does not possess
the power or authority to initiate or sign Affidavits in court, except when
presenting a third-party Affidavit to substantiate allegations made by a
party. This limitation is expressly by emphasizing the advocate's role in
Court appearances and circumscribing their authority concerning Affidavit
submissions.
6. A legal representative, an Advocate in this case, appearing through a
Vakalatnama on behalf of a client is prohibited from assuming his entire
identity. It is one thing for an Advocate to petition or appeal or proceeding
on Affidavit swearing to facts which concern only his client more so when
the advocate has appeared for the said client in an earlier proceeding in his
capacity as the client’s advocate and not as his witness, which is
acceptable, it is quite inappropriate for the Advocate to file an Affidavit
attesting to facts exclusively concerning his client.
7. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 states that every advocate whose
name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as the Right to Practice
throughout the territory to which the Act applies. Thus, an advocate gets
his right to practice in a Court only under Section 30 of the Act. ‘Practise’
in itself means to appear on behalf of his client before a Court or Tribunal
in the best interest of his client. The term ‘practice’ however, certainly
does not give liberty to an Advocate to identify himself with his client and
step into the shoes of his client, so far as the rights of his client are
concerned. An Advocate is restricted to acting solely in accordance with
the provisions outlined in the power of attorney or vakalatnama, and is
barred from simultaneously assuming dual roles.
8. While an Advocate can serve as a Recognised Agent or Constituted
 3

Attorney under a Power of Attorney, signing documents, Affidavit in this

particular case, as if the party had done so, a conflict arises when the
advocate simultaneously combines roles in the same case. Advocates,
governed by the Advocates Act 1961 and long standing principles, are
obligated to maintain impartiality and detachment, assisting the court in
administering justice. Combining the roles of an Advocate and a
Constituted Attorney in the same proceedings is prohibited, as it
compromises the necessary detachment and impartiality expected of an
Advocate. The law prohibits such a combination to avoid confusion and
uphold the principles of fair and impartial justice. The distinction between
the two spheres has to be maintained and even if no personal Affidavits
are signed, the lawyer still cannot combine the two capacities and the two
roles.
9. It is explicitly stated that the practice of advocates simultaneously serving
as power of attorney holders for their clients, along with their role as
advocates in legal matters, contradicts the stipulations of the Advocates
Act, 1961. An advocate engaged by a client is mandated to fulfill a
singular role—exclusively as the advocate in the proceedings. Engaging in
the dual capacity of a power of attorney holder, verifying pleadings, filing
applications including Affidavits, or presenting evidence on behalf of the
client is explicitly prohibited. The reason for being unable to file the
Affidavit by the concerned party directly has not been mentioned either.
10. Here, the affiant being a lawyer has not even provided reasonable
justifications as to why the party in question is not directly filing the
Affidavit. In situations where the situation is so and when there is no
evident justification—such as the party's residence abroad or inherent and
exceptional difficulties preventing direct involvement—a reasonable
explanation could satisfy the non-performance of the party in filing the
Affidavit. However, no explanation has been given for the same. This
principle is emphasized even more so when the party's active participation
is expected and feasible. The party has demonstrated willful negligence
and latches to show or explain any of the reasons as to why the Affidavit
has been filed by the Advocate instead of the concerned party itself.
11. Furthermore, an Advocate engaged by a client is strictly confined to the
singular role of representing the client in legal proceedings. The advocate
is therefore prohibited from acting in a multidimensional manner.. The
Affidavit in question is incomplete and lacks essential details, further
eroding its credibility and validity. This is not just a matter of legal
technicality, but goes to the very heart of the principles of justice, fairness,
and reliability of evidence. It should be ensured that the sanctity of the
legal process is upheld and truth is not compromised in the process.
12. If an Advocate signs the Affidavit in support of the objections , then the
advocate may be called for cross-examination as a witness. And such a
 4

situation would be in clear violation of the Bar Council of India Rules.

Members of the Bar, guided by the Advocates Act, 1961, and long
standing principles, are integral partners in the administration of justice.
This duty extends to fair treatment of opponents. Advocates adhere to
these principles, representing a noble profession with traditions shaped
over generations in the administration of justice. In contrast, a Constituted
Attorney aligns with the donor of Power of Attorney, akin to a suitor-
litigant. Advocates, bound not just by legal provisions but also by
centuries-old bar traditions, must sign a vakalatnama, as per Order III,
Rule 4, either by the party or their Recognized Agent. The question arises
whether a pleader, acting as a Constituted Attorney, can sign a
vakalatnama as a client in favor of themselves as an Advocate or their
partner's firm; the answer is clearly in negative, as illustrated by the
aforementioned reasons.
13. The essence of an Affidavit lies in its firsthand account of facts, its
authenticity, and its reliability. When an Affidavit is filed by an advocate,
it loses these essential characteristics as the advocate does not have a
personal knowledge of the facts of the case. This not only undermines the
credibility of the Affidavit but also contravenes the established principles
of law.
14. Hence it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this
Objection and dismiss the Petitioner for Amendment of Plaint in the
interest of Justice.

Dated this the 29th Day of November 2023

Abdul Rahim
Defendant
Deepak JM
Advocate

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

MUNSIFF COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

O.S. NO. 1900 of 2023

BETWEEN
Alappuzha Anantha Narayanapuram
5

Thuravoor Thirumala Devaswom

Plaintiff
AND

Abdul Rahim @ S. Rahim

Defendant

OBJECTION TO THE
AMENDMENT APPLICATION

DEEPAK.J.M
Dhanya U D
Vishnu Hari R
David Varghese Thomas
Premjith s

ADVOCATES

Address for service

DEEPAK J M
Advocate, “The Chamber”, 8 th Floor,
Maharani Building,Opposite Triveni Nursing
Home, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-
35, Mobile: 8891713990(off), 9846013990 e-
mail. advdeepaktvm@gmail.com
thechambertvm@gmail.com