Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The petitioner is a senior member of the Thiruvananthapuram Bar and he challenges in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Ext.P2 order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reiterating the view of the ministerial side of the court that the Vakkalath filed by the petitioner for one Smt. B. Rajamma who was the respondent in R.C.A.No.47 of 1998 of that court was defective. Ext.P1 is the photostat copy of the Vakkalath which was actually filed by the petitioner in RCA. No. 47 of 1998. Ext.P1 shows that Smt.Rajamma, the respondent in the RCA had executed the Vakkalath in favour of the petitioner Advocate. Ext.P1 will also show that the Vakkalath has been accepted by the petitioner Advocate. The defect noted by the registry of the court is that the Vakkalath is not attested by any authorized person and that the attestation is done by the accepting Advocate himself.

2. Drawing our attention to sub-rule (1) of rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice Mr. L. Mohanan, learned counsel would submit that the words "any other person" occurring in the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rul