Dave, J.—This case comes before us on a reference made by a Single Bench of this Court. The question referred is as follows :—

Whether an application or execution which is admitted and registered by the executing court and which is proper in other respects should not be considered to have been made in accordance with law simply because it was presented by a vakil whose Vakalatnama was not signed by the decree-holder."

2. Before we proceed to answer the question, it would be proper to set out briefly the facts which have given rise to the point referred to us. On 27tb November, 1943, respondent Deoraj, obtained a money decree against, appellant, Govind Singh. On 20th October, 1949, the decree-holder presented an application for execution, but it was dismissed for default on 19.12.49. Thereafter, a second application for execution was presented on behalf of the decree-holder on 16.12.52. It was registered on 20-12 52 and a notice under O. 21, R. 22, C.P.C. was ordered to issue against the judgment debtor. On 24.1.53 the case came for hearing before the court. On that day, judgment-debtor was absent and so he passed an order, in his absence for attachment of his property and the case wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document