Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondent.

2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and respondents are the original defendants. Petitioners filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 2003 against the respondents. In the suit, respondents appeared through one Mr. Girija Shankar Upadhyay who claimed to be a Power of Attorney holder of the respondents and filed their written statement on 15 October 2004 contesting the suit. One Uday Shankar Upadhyay also appeared in the suit claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the respondents and filed another written statement on the same date i.e. 15 October 2004 admitting the contents of the plaint. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application at Exhibit 24 for passing a decree in terms of admission contained in the written statement filed by Uday Shankar. By an order dated 21 February 2007, the trial Judge dismissed the application and refused to pass a decree in terms of the admission. That order is impugned in this revision application.

3. It appears that the dispute before the trial court was whether Uday Shankar Upadhyay or Girija Shankar Upadhyay was the power of attorney holde