The absence of a vakalat accompanying the plaint at the time of presentation was an irregularity that could be cured and did not invalidate the presentation.

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the dismissal of an application seeking review of a judgment in a suit.

2. Heard Mr. K.S. Gnanasambandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C.S.K. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the petitioner in O.S. No. 2264 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit was dismissed by a judgment dated 24.11.2006. The respondent filed a first appeal in A.S. No. 139 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner/defendant took out an application before the trial Court in I.A. No. 4205 of 2008 under Section 152 C.P.C., seeking a small correction in the decree. The correction sought for by the petitioner was with regard to the date of presentation of the plaint. The date of presentation of the plaint was indicated in the decree as 29.03.2005. The petitioner sought a correction of the said date to 07.04.2005. The reason for the petitioner seeking such a correction was that though the plaint and other papers appear to have been presented on 29.03.2005, the papers were not admittedly accompanied by a vakalat duly signed by the respondent/plaintiff authorising their counsel to present the plaint. It appears that the plaint was returned on 30.03.2005 on the ground that it was not accompanied by the vakalat and the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff represented the papers along with the vakalat only on 07.04.2005. Obviously, the petitioner wanted the correction with regard to the date of presentation of the suit, on account of the fact if the date of presentation of the plaint is taken to be 07.04.2005, the suit was out of time. If it is taken to be 29.03.2005, it was within time.

4. Mr. K.S. Gnanasambandan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the provisions of Section 26 read with Order III Rule 4 C.P.C., the plaint is deemed to have been presented only if it was accompanied by a vakalat, if the presentation was actually made by a counsel. If the plaint was presented by a counsel Without enclosing a vakalat, it is no presentation in the eye of law and cannot even be termed as an improper presentation.

5. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

1. Muhammad Ali Khan and Others v. Jas Ram and Others (1936 ILR Calcutta 46)

2. Nandamani Anangabhima and Another v. Modono Mohono Deo (AIR 1937 Madras 239 = (1936)

44 L.W. 528)

3. Sheikh Palat v. Sarwan Sahu and Others (AIR 1920 Patna 581)

4. Official Receiver, Aligarh v. Hira Lal and Another (AIR 1935 Allahabad 727)

5. Ramkaran v. Shrikishan and Others (AIR 1976 Rajasthan 130)

6. Tentu Lakshmu Naidu v. Vaisreddi Verda Rama Rao and Another (AIR 1980 Andhra Pradesh 62)

7. Parvati and Others v. Anand Parkash (AIR 1987 Delhi 90)

6. Before considering the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look at the provisions, on which reliance is placed. Section 26 CPC reads as follows:

“Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed.”

7. Order III Rules 1 and 4 C.P.C. read as follows:

“1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognised agent or by pleader: Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party in such Court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognised law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognised agent, or by a pleader (appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be) on his behalf:

Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.

4. Appointment of Pleader:— (1) No