JUDGMENT :

Vivek Chaudhary, J.

1. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 13.11.1992 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Faizabad whereby the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the Revision no.85 of 1987 filed by the defendants.

2. Facts of the case are that in absence of the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed on 30.5.1984. A restoration application was filed, which was numbered as Misc. Case No.30 of 1984. The same was also dismissed in default on 19.1.1985. On 21.1.1985, another recall application for recalling the order dated 19.1.1985 was filed which was numbered as Misc. Case No.12 of 1985. By an order dated 8.5.1987, the court below allowed the Misc. Case No.12 of 1985 and recalled the order dated 19.1.1985. Against the said order, a revision was filed. Objection raised in the revision was that Misc. Case No.12 of 1985 was not filed by the plaintiffs, but by Sri Mohd Haneef, Advocate, though he was not an advocate for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the recall application was not filed properly. The ground taken was that Sri Mohd. Haneef, Advocate had not signed the Vakalatnama for the plaintiffs. The said revision was opposed