JUDGMENT

Scott-Smith, J. - This is a second appeal by Gopal Singh, plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed on appeal by the District Judge on the ground that the plaint was filed by a person who was not a recognised agent within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed by Mt. Rajji, mother of Gopal Singh, who purported to be a duly appointed mukhtar. A power of attorney WHS filed with the plaint. No objection was taken in the trial Court as to the validity of the power-of-attorney, and on the 28th of January, 1921, a decree was passed in favour of Gopal Singh. The defendants appealed making Gopal Singh respondent through Mt. Bajji, his mukhtar. No objection was taken to the validity of the power-of-attorney in the grounds of appeal in the lower appellate Court, Service was effected on Mt. Rajji and at the hearing of the appeal objection was taken for the first time to the validity of the power-of-attorney. The District Judge upheld the objection and, setting aside the decree of the first Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

2. Gopal Singh himself has now filed the present appeal through Mr. J.G. Sethi, Advocate, who contended on his behalf that the objection being a technical one and not having been taken in the first Court, it should be deemed to have been waived. It is also contended that if it be held' that Mt. Rajji was not the duly appointed or recognised agent of Gopal Singh, then service upon her for purposes of appeal was insufficient, and the decree in favour of Gopal Singh could not be set aside without his personally having been served. Mr. Sethi has referred to the following authorities. Bisandas v. Lakhmichand 6 B.H.C.A.C. 159. In that case it was held that the munim of a firm is not, for the purpose of presenting a plaint, the recognised agent (under Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code) of a partner who is present within the jurisdiction. The munim and such partner should join in presenting the plaint, or appointing a Pleader. It was also held that the partner's not so joining was not a ground on which an appellate Court should reverse the decree of a lower Court unless the irregularity affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Courts.

3. Munoo Dossee v. Ishan Chunder Banerjee 15 W.R. 345. In that case an objection was raised in the trial Court that the plaint had not been filed by a recognised agent within the meaning of Section 17, Act VIII of 1859, and was disposed of in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court threw out the case on the ground that the person who filed the plaint was not a recognised agent. The High Court held that the case should not have been thrown out on such a technical objection which did not affect the merits of the case.

4. Parvatibai v. Vinayek Pandurcmg (1868) 12 Bom. 68. In that case no objection was taken to the status of the recognised agent until after the decree was passed and the High Court held that the objection could not be raised in execution for the first time.

5. The case reported as Munoo Dossee v. Ishan Chunder Barnerjee 15 W.R. 345 is the one which most resembles the present case. Toe only difference is that there the objection was raised in the trial Court and was decided in favour of the plaintiff, and, though the High Court agreed that the objection was a valid owe, it was of opinion that the appellate Court should not have set aside the decree upon that ground alone. Here no objection at all was raised in the trial Court and, therefore, there was no disposal of the point. The defendants were represented by learned Counsel in that Court and it was his duty to see that the plaint was properly filed, and as no objection was raised on behalf of the defendants, I consider that it must be held to have been waived. If the objectioD had been raised at that time it could easily have been cured by Mt. Rajji obtaining a properly executed power-of-attorney from Gopal Singh. In my opinion it was not fair that an objection of this sor