Back
1896 Supreme(Mad) 90
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Ayyar, Davies
Queen-Empress
Versus
Karuppa Udayan And Ors.
Decided On : 1 October, 1896
The presentation of an appeal by the pleader's clerk, when the pleader is duly authorized and the appeal is signed by the pleader, is valid and equivalent to presentation by the pleader himself.
Headnote:
Presentation of Appeal - Equivalence of Pleader's Clerk - Legal Validity
Fact of the Case:
The Deputy Magistrate rejected the appeal initially made by the petitioners as it was presented by their pleader's clerk, not by themselves or their pleader.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the presentation by the pleader's clerk, when the appeal is signed by the pleader and he is duly authorized, is equivalent to a presentation by the pleader himself.
Issues: The issue was the validity of the appeal presentation by the pleader's clerk and whether it was equivalent to presentation by the pleader himself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous cases to establish the legal principle that the presentation of an appeal by the pleader's clerk, when the pleader is duly authorized and the appeal is signed by the pleader, is valid and equivalent to presentation by the pleader himself.
Final Decision: The original appeal was directed to be replaced on the file and heard and disposed of according to law, and the order on the second appeal filed by the petitioners was set aside.
1. The Deputy Magistrates reason for not accepting the appeal at first made by the four petitioners was that it was not presented by themselves or their pleader, but only by their pleaders clerk. Such presentation has been held by this Court to be equivalent to a presentation by the pleader himself, when the petition of appeal is signed by the pleader and he is duly authorised as was the case here vide Queen-Empress v. Gudiyati Samuel, Criminal Revision Case No. 153 of 1894 unreported Queen-Empress v. Virap-pan Chetti Criminal Eevision Case No. 50 of 1895 unreported and Qveen-Empress v. Chinna Basuva Chetti Criminal Revision Case No. 652 of 1895 unreported.
2. We must therefore direct the original appeal to the replaced on the file and heard and disposed of according to law. The order on the second appeal filed by the petitioners is set aside.
