ORDER :- (Ramaswami, J. of the Madras High Court.) This appeal raises a point of importance daily arising in our Courts in the mofussil.

2. The facts are : Mr. P. Viswanatha Rao, Pleader of the Markapur Bar, filed E. P. No. 15 of 1950 in O. S. No. 464 of 1935. It is common ground that this E. P. by itself is in proper form and has also been signed by the party as well as by the pleader. It has been presented by Mr. P. Visvanatha Rao and it is undisputed that at the time when he filed the E. P. he had no vakalat. In fact he has subsequently attempted to rectify this error by getting a vakalat from his client and filing it. The opponent naturally pointed out that this petition had no legal effect not having been made in accordance with law and is a nullity and relied upon the Bench decision of this Court in Nandamani Ananga Bhima Deo v. Madana Mohana Deo, ILR (1937) Mad 320 : (AIR 1937 Mad 239) (A). The learned District Munsiff upheld the plea of the respondent and dismissed the E. P. There was an appeal therefrom to the learned District Judge of Kurnool and he set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the petition for fresh disposal in the light of the following observations :

"The decision of his Lordship Justice Krishnaswami Nayudu in Narappa v. Subbarayudu, 1950-2 Mad LJ 256 : (AIR 1951 Mad 340) (B) had not been published in the reports when the learned District Munsif, pronounced the judgment under appeal. Under that decision, two questions of fact have to be considered by the District Munsif. The first is whether Sri P. Viswanatha Rao was authorised to represent the decree-holder on the date on which the execution petition was presented. The second is, whether, if he was so authorised, his failure or neglect to obtain a vakalat from the decree-holder and present the vakalat along with the execution petition was due to a bona fide mistake. If both these questions are answered in the affirmative, the defect of initial want of vakalat could be cured at the discretion of the District Munsif. The learned District Munsif will, if necessary, take evidence on those points and decide, the execution afresh in the light of his Lordships decision."

The present appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge of Kurnool.

3. In ILR (1937) Mad 320 : (AIR 1937 Mad 239) (A), the facts were identical. There also the execution petition, otherwise in accordance with law and signed by the decree-holder, was presented by a vakil who had no vakalat authorising him to present it. The point arose for determination was whether that was an application in accordance with law and the Bench held that this question admitted of a very simple answer.

"Under O. 21, R. 10, Civil P. C., the decree-holder shall apply for execution......."

By O. 3, R. 1, Any application to any Court, required or authorised by law to be made by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made by the party in person, or by his recognised agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting on his behalf.

It is not alleged in this case that the party made these applications to the Court in person. It is not alleged that he made them by a recognised agent. The only case is that he made them by his pleader Mr. Thumbanadham. Order 3, R. 4, says : No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment.

This means, according to the contentions of the judgment-debtor, that the act of the pleader in presenting these execution petitions was a mere nullity. According to the contentions of the learned advocate for the appellants, Mr. Jagannadha Das, the want of a vakalat was a mere irregularity which may be cured or condoned. We have had a very large number of cases cited but none of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document