Objections raised against Court auction sale.

Srinivasan, J.

1. The appeal was in the list for final hearing on 21.4.1988 and learned Counsel who was on record at that time reported no instructions; the party's name was called and the appellant did not appear. Hence, the appeal was dismissed on that date.

2. C.M.P. No. 9919 of 1990 has been filed for set. ting aside the order of dismissal dated 21.4.1988. It is stated in the affidavit that at the time when the appeal was filed M/s. M.N. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan had filed vakalath for the appellant and on 12.1.1987 they had given consent for change of vakalath. It is further stated that on 19.1.1987 a vakalath was filed by M/s. M. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss, Advocates, Madras. But, admittedly no application was filed for revocation of vakalath given already to M/s. M.N. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan. Under Order 2, Rule 4(3) of the Appellate Side Rules, the Registrar is empowered to order change of practitioners on application made on stamped petition. Though no petition was filed by the appellant or his new counsel M/s. M. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss the Registry simply accepted the vakalath filed by M/s. M. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss and kept it along with records without making any entry of the fresh vakalath. Accordingly, the vakalath of M/s. M.N. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan continued to be valid and the Registry was right in not recognising the vakalath of M/s. M. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss and making entries in the registers. The Registry is also right in showing the names of M/s. M.N. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan as counsel for the appellants in the cause list when the case was posted in the list for disposal.

3. At the time when the appeal was dismissed as stated above, M/s. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss did not appear before Court and inform the Court that they were representing the client; nor did the appellant inform M/s. M.N. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan that he had engaged M/s. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss after M/s. Padmanabhan and R. Singaravelan had given consent for change of Vakalath.

4. Hence, there is no necessity for this Court to entertain this application, which has been filed alter a period of more than two years. When the application came up for hearing, I felt it better to hear the appeal on merits and dispose of the same. Consequently, the petition for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 21.4.1988 was also posted along with the appeal to-day and the appeal was heard on merits. It should also be mentioned that counsel who' are appearing for the appellant to-day are not M/s. Shamdoss and Thulasidoss. These counsels filed their vakalath on 2.1.1989 and they too have not filed an application for change of practitioners.

5. It is seen that the Registry has been simply accepting vakalaths with endorsements of consent for change of practitioners without stamped petitions for orders. This practice is clearly against the rules and it is not permitted in law. The Registry has been adopting this practice and counsel have also been ignoring the rules. A petition for revocation of vakalath or for change of practitioners is absolutely necessary and unless such a petition is filed, the vakalath already on record would continue to be valid. Only such counsel's name would appear in the record. I have issued directions to the Registry that hereafter no change of vakalath shall be accepted unless there is an application for an order for change of practitioners. This should be strictly followed by the Registry hereafter.

6. Coming to the merits of the appeal, it is against an order dismissing the application for setting aside the Court auction sale. The appellant, who is the son of the judgment debtor, filed the application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. He raised various grounds challenging the validity of the sale. All of them related to the description of the property in the proclamation of the sale and the value of the property fixed by the Amin as accepted by the Court. The Court below