JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Both these writ petitions arise out of order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on 12-8-1996.

2.Heard Mr. C.R. Dalvi, the learned Counsel for petitioner in both the writ petitions.

3.Mr. Dalvi has raised two fold contentions : (i) that since Shri J.M. Chitale, Advocate, was appearing on behalf of the plaintiff to argue application Exhibit-5 having been engaged by Shri M.M. Mokashi, Advocate, who was duly appointed to act in the Court on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore no Vakalatnama or memo of appearance or authority was required to be filed by Shri J.M. Chitale, Advocate, and (ii) that there was no justification by the Court below in directing Shri Chitale, Advocate to produce his sanad since the same lawyer has been in the Court in Pune for more than 25 years.

4.I have considered the contentions raised by Mr. Dalvi and also perused the order dated 12-8-96 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune along with other material placed on record and provisions of Order 3, Rule 4(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the relevant rules framed by the Bombay High Court in that connection.

5.Coming to the second contention raised by the lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document