SAEEDA ASHRAF Vs. V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dtd. 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 dtd. 19/1/1985 was filed which was numbered as Misc. Case No.12 of 1985. By an order dtd. 8/5/1987, the court below allowed the Misc. Case No.12 of 1985 and recalled the order dtd. 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 by the plaintiffs. The revisionists before the revisional court had relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1931 Allahabad 767, Chheeta vs Musammat Maiko and others and AIR 1935 Allahabad 727 Official Receiver, Aligarh versus Hiralal and others. The respondents in revision had relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 172, Mahela Salnarayanan vs Bamnoori Bank Someshya, AIR 1946 Bombay 174 Hira Lal and Gendalal versus Bhagirathi Ram Chander and Company, and 1949 ALJ 105 Kanhaiyalal versus Panchayati Akhada by Dharamdas.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below held that since the Vakalatnama was signed only by the plaintiffs and not by Sri Mohd. Haneef, Advocate, therefore, Sri Mohd. Haneef, Advocate was not properly appointed as a lawyer and thus, it is an error which cannot be corrected and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected. Against the said order, present writ petition is filed.