The main legal point established in the judgment is that a defect in the presentation of a petition, if a mere irregularity, does not render the decree void and cannot be used to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.

( 1 ) HEARD. THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously argued that there was a fundamental defect in tne presentation of HRC application, namely, HRC application in HRC No. 15/1969 inasmuch as the lawyer who presented the petition did not file a proper vakalath in the sense that the vakalath he filed before the Court was not duly signed by the party. Neither the Court nor the other side noticed this fact and the proceeding went on as if everything was quite regular. Ultimately, hrc petition No. 15/69 came fo be decreed in favour of the petitioner landlord. An appeal was instituted against the said decree for eviction and the appeal was dismissed and the matter was brought to this court in a civil revision petition and the crp was dismissed on 7 3 1974 and the order of eviction became final. It is thereafter that the tenant instituted OS no. 164/80 before the Prl. Civil Judge belgaum praying for a declaration that the decree obtained for eviction in HRC No. 15/69 was void and that it could not be enforced against the platiff tenant. After hearing, the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge and thereafter an appeal was instituted before the District judge, Belgaum in RA No. 176/80 on his file. The II Addl. Dist. Judge, Belgaum, who heard the appeal raised the following points as arising for his consideration in the appeal : x x x x

( 2 ) THE learned Dist. Judge, reassessing the evidence on record in the light of the arguments addressed before him, held against the appellants on all the points and in that view dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have instituted the above second appeal before this Court.

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the other side for admission and counsel were heard.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously urged before me that the entire HRC proceeding was void as the presentation by the counsel was not legal and proper as the vakalath was not signed by the petitioner and accepted by the Advocate. He further submitted that this defect was not cured even till the disposal of the entire proceeding and now the proceedings having been over the Court had become functus officio. He submitted that this important point was not noticed properly by the first appellate Court. Hence, he submitted that that forms the substantial question of law on which this appeal should be admitted.

( 5 ) AS against that, the learned counsel who was allowed to argue at the stage of admission as the matter was of some consequence to the respondents, submitted that the defect, if at all, was a mere irregularity and that it would not go to the root of the matter and vitiate the decree. He further submitted that any fault committed by an officer of the Court or by the court itself, should not go to prejudice the interest of a party.

( 6 ) THE point that I have to consider at this stage of admission is, whether there is any substantial question of law which is involved on the facts of this case.

( 7 ) S. 100, CPC after amendment requires that this court should be satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal before admitting it and such substantial question of law has to be formulated. It is true that the term substantial question, of law' is not defined in the CPC. Dealing with that expression contained under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in the case Sir chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. , v. Century spinning and Manufacturing Co. , Ltd. , (1) has explained the expression 'substantial question of law' in para 6 of the judgment thus :"we are in general agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court and we think that while the view taken by the Bombay High Court is rather narrow, the one taken by the former high Court of Nagpur is too wide. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opi