( 1 ) THIS civil revision filed by the plaintiff arises out of an order passed by the learned District judge, Aligarh, holding that the revision was not properly presented.

( 2 ) THE facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Judge Small Cause Court, Aligarh, for recovery of Rs. 1,000/ -. The suit was partly decreed and thereafter a revision was filed by the same counsel who had filed the suit without filing a fresh vakalatnama. The counsel made a note on the petition of revision that his vakalatnama was already on record in the original suit. The learned Judge passed an order that the revision was not properly presented because the vakalatnama filed in the lower court does not provide an express right to the learned counsel to file a revision on behalf of the applicant and Order III Rule 4 (3) does not confer such a right. This order passed by the learned Judge in this case and several other cases, which are all fixed for hearing today, is totally erroneous.

( 3 ) IT will appear from the vakalatnama filed in these cases that there is a clause permitting the lawyer to file an appeal, to make applications and to act on behalf of the client in all pr