General Information:

 Decision no: 7033

 Bench: Special Bench
 Case: Writ of mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto, and other necessary order to be done by the
court under Article 23/88 (1) and (2) of Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal, 2047
 Applicant: Abhikarta aged 53 Narayan Prasad Koirala residing in Syangja district; Putalibazaar
municipality, ward no. 11; Kulbaad
 Respondent: Syangja district court

Related laws:
 Article 23/88 (1) and (2) of Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal, 2047
 Nepal Bar Council Act, 2050
 The Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2051
 Evidence Act, 2031
 Section 11 of Legal Practitioners Act, 2025, [repelled]
 Rule 7 of legal practitioner regulation Act 2025[repelled]

Established Precedent:
 There is no legal provision regarding Abhikarta to plead the case as a legal practitioner in the
court of law. Abhikarta to conduct witness testimony by questioning and cross-examining in the
presence of the bench and representing the party as a legal practionioner can't be stated in
accordance with the Evidence Act, 2031. In such condition, the appellant stating to have been
working as a legal practitioner doesn't allow him to advocate the case which he had already taken
[Vakalatnama] and cross examine the witness testimony. The present Nepal Bar Council Act,
2050 and provision of stated code of ethics doesn't seem to have hindered the function of
Abhikarta under the present law. In this context, it can't be said that the appellant's fundamental
right has been violated. So, the verdict given by the Syangja district court and appellate court that
his position as a Abhikarta can't conduct the proceeding as to be done by a legal practitioner; i.e
appellant not to cross-examine the witness testimony can't be regarded as unlawful verdict.