Full Judgment
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Sri M. V. Shamanna, learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioners, and Sri Mahesh Wadiar for Sri Mohan Shanthana Goudar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This revision has been filed against the order dt. 24-1-1998 whereby the trial Court has refused to accept the appearance and vakalathnama put up by the Additional Government Pleader, Laxmeshwar, as it did not contain the Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamp which is required by law to be affixed on the Vakalathnama.
3. The learned Government Counsel contended that the Court below acted illegally in rejecting the Vakalathnama and in directing that the case shall be proceeded ex parte.
4. I have perused Section 23 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote the same in extenso.
'Section 23. Vakalath to bear stamps.-
(1) Every Advocate shall affix one welfare Fund stamp on every vakalath filed by him and no vakalath shall be filed before or received by any Court, tribunal or other authority unless it is so stamped.
(2) Every welfare Fund stamp affixed on vakalath filed before any Court, tribunal or other authority shall be cancelled in the manner provided in the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1958).
(3) The value of the welfare Fund stamp shall neither be costs in the case nor be collected in any event from the client.
(4) Any contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (3) by the member shall disentitle him to the benefits of the Fund and the trustee committee shall report such instances to the Bar Council for appropriate action.'
A reading of this section per se reveals that it is mandatory on every Advocate to affix the welfare fund stamp on every Vakalathnama filed by him and Section 23(1) prohibits the Courts, tribunals and other authorities from receiving any such Vakalathanama on which Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamp is not affixed.
5. The definition of the term 'Advocate' given in Section 2 of the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Act provides as under :--
'Section 2. Definitions.-- In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) 'advocate' means a person whose name has been entered in the State roll ofAdvocates prepared and maintained by the Bar Council of Karnataka under Section 17 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961) and includes a legal practitioner whose rights are saved under Section 55 of the said Act and who ordinarily practices in the State of Karnataka.'
The definition of 'Advocate' does not contain any exception nor Section 23 contains any exception in favour of the advocates who are or have been appointed as Government Pleaders or Government Advocates. As per the definition of 'Advocate' given in this Act namely the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1985, every person who is enrolled on the roll of the State Bar Council is an advocate including a legal practitioner whose rights have been protected and saved under Section 55 and if he is ordinarily practising in the State of Karnataka, he is bound to pay the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamp and to affix the same on the Vakalathnama filed by him or her. There being no exception created in favour of the State Law Officers who are none else, but the Advocates enrolled under Section 17 of the Advocates' Act, 1961, in my opinion, they are also liable to pay the welfare Fund stamp under the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act and to affix the same on the Vakalathnama and if the same is not affixed, the Court is bound to refuse to accept that Vakalathnama. No doubt, before ordering the case to go ex parte, the counsel, whether he be a private party practising counsel or a State Counsel, should be given a reasonable time to make the deficiency good. The value of the stamp is only Rs. 5/-. So, there is no question of too much to be suffered by the counsel when paying the stamp and it is expected that the Lawyers should affix that stamp on the Vakalathnama, because it is only collected for their welfare i.e., the welfare of the members of the Bar, whether they be State Counsels or Private Counsels.
Thus considered in my opinion, in the present case, the learned civil Judge did not commit any error of law or of jurisdiction in not accepting the Vakalathnama which had been filed without putting the stamp of the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund which is worth Rs. 5/- only. No doubt, before proceeding ex parte, the learned Additional Government Pleader should be given an opportunity to file the Vakalathnama withthe Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamp affixed thereon, before proceeding ex parte.
The revision, as such with above observations and subject to above direction is hereby disposed off dismissing it on merits.