Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Background:

1. Savithri has a son and a daughter, Satheesh Kumar and Latha Kumari, respectively. Claiming maintenance from her son, she has filed an unnumbered M.C. before the Family Court, Nedumangad. Savithri's daughter represents her.

2. But the registry noted certain defects in the Petition (Ext. P1) and returned it on 18.08.2016, perhaps, for the party to cure the defects. The defects the registry noted are these: (1) The vakalathnama (Ext. P2) was not attested by an advocate"; (2) M.C., filed by the petitioner's daughter, has no power of attorney attached.

3. Sri N. Satheesh Kumar, Savithri's counsel, has agreed to cure the second defect. As to the first defect, he took a plea that he filed the vakalathnama in a proper form satisfying all the legal formalities under the Rule 27 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1971.

4. But the Family Court's registry has insisted, according to the petitioner, that the vakalathnama does not conform to the statutory stipulations. The registry's stand on the vakalathnama is now challenged. When these simple facts were narrated, we found nothing amiss; it must be one of the numerous run-of-the-mill cases. But it is not. Here the counsel himself filed the Revision; Savithri, the principal, or her daughter, who represented her mother as her power of attorney, is not even arrayed as a party to the proceedings.

The Contention:

5. Sri A.S. Shammy Raj, the learned counsel for Satheesh Kumar, has submitted that the Family Court has been inconsistent in its approach. According to him, earlier, in another case, it has accepted Satheesh Kumar's vakalat under identical circumstances. But this time it has taken an obstinate stand.

The Court's Clarification:

6. To ascertain the Registry's stand, this Court has called for a report from the Family Court, Nedumangad, which, in fact, has sent one. The learned Presiding Officer, to her credit, has sent a report setting out in detail on what, in her view, is a non-issue. It seems to us, too, to be so.

The Report:

7. The learned Presiding Officer has averred that the Court has not at all ordered the unnumbered M.C., to be returned; in fact, the counsel himself took it as if he had intended to cure the defects. The learned Presiding Officer has also felt that had the counsel cured the second defect, the Court would have numbered the case. She did concede that the counsel filed the vakalath duly complying with Rule 27(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice. Refuting the petitioner's allegation on the registry's inconsistency, the Presiding Officer has asserted that the same counsel's vakalath getting accepted in another case has no parallels to the case on hand: that was entirely under different circumstances.

Rule 27 of the CRP:

8. Rule 27 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with the method and manner of a counsel's presenting a vakalathnama. Sub-rule (1) of that Rule mandates that every vakalath, subject to exceptions, must be in Form No. 12. It may authorize the pleader to appear in all execution and miscellaneous proceedings in the suit or matter, even after a decree or order is passed in the proceedings. Procedurally, (1) the pleaders' name shall be inserted in the vakkalath before it is executed; (2) it shall be dated during its execution and acceptance; and (3) its execution shall be attested by any of the following officials: (a) a judicial officer, (b) a District Registrar or a Sub-Registrar, (c) the Chief Ministerial Officer of a Civil or Criminal Court in the State of Kerala, (d) a Member of Parliament or of the Legislature of any State in India, (e) the Chairman, Executive Authority, or a member of any Municipal Council or Corporation, or other local authority in India, (f) a Village Officer, (g) a Gazetted Officer in the service of the Central Government or of any State in India, (h) a Commissioned Officer in the Defence Forces of India, (i) an Ambassador or Envoy duly accredited by or to the Central Government, (j) or a pleader o