C S PILLAI Vs. NARAYANA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent 1 in A.S. No.121 of 1121 on the file of the District Court of Trivandrum, is the revision petitioner. The appeal was dismissed for default on 4.2.1124. The Advocate who was appearing for the appellant filed an application on 22.2.1124 for restoration of the appeal to file. The respondent opposed that application on several grounds one of which was that the Advocate had no authority to present the restoration application. The lower Court overruled all the objections and allowed the restoration application on condition of the appellant paying Rs. 10 by way of costs to the respondent. The amount was deposited within the prescribed time, and accordingly the appeal was restored to the file. This revision is directed against that order.

(2.) It is clear from a reading of all these provisions together that the vakkalath or the authority of the pleader to act on behalf of the client is determined with the disposal of the case on its merits or with its dismissal for default and that the pleader can present an application for restoration of the case only after obtaining a fresh vakkalath or authority from the client, unless such application is presented on the very date of dismissal for default.

(3.) In the present case the dismissal of the appeal for default was on 4.2.1124 and the application for restoration was filed only on 22.2.1124. Since no fresh vakalath was filed by the Advocate who presented that application he had no authority to present that application. It follows therefore that the restoration application had no legal effect in so far as it was not filed in accordance with law. All the same it is seen that the defect of want of authority on the part of the Advocate to present such an application was cured on 3.3.1124 by the production of a fresh vakkalath from the party. Thus on 3.3.1124 the Advocate had authority to present an application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for default. The restoration application filed on 22.2.1124 without any such authority could be deemed to have been presented on 3.3.1124 on which date fresh vakkalath was filed. The period of 30 days prescribed for filing such a restoration application had not expired even on 3.3.1124 and hence the restoration application was within time even if it is deemed to have been filed only on 3.3.1124. The lower Court was therefore right in holding that the defect of want of authority on the part of the Advocate who presented the restoration application was cured within the time allowed by law and the application could be deemed to have been duly presented on 3.3.1124.