STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. YATENDRA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the judgment dated 5-10-1960 passed by the District Judge Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1960 arising out of the decree passed by the First-Civil Judge Second Class gwalior, in Civil Original Suit No. 64 of 1959.

(2.) A decree for recovery of a sum of money was passed against the State of madhya Pradesh by the First Civil Judge Second Class Gwalior in the suit aforesaid. The State Government directed the Collector Gwalior to file an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of first instance. The memorandum of appeal was accordingly drawn up by the Government Pleader Shri Diwan and was filed by him under the signatures of the Collector Gwalior District and himself. Shri diwan, however, did not file along with the memorandum of appeal a vakalatnama duly signed by the Collector Gwalior authorising him to act and appear on his behalf in the said appeal. The District Judge Gwalior held that inasmuch as Shri diwan did not file a power of attorney or a vakalatnama signed by the Collector gwalior along with the memorandum of appeal the appeal was presented by an unauthorised person and was, therefore, incompetent. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The State Government has now come up in Second appeal before this Court.

(3.) IT appears that ft was not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge that in the formar Madhya Bharat State the Government Pleaders whose appointments were notified under Order 27 C. P. C. were not required to file a power of attorney or a vakalatnama along with the plaints or memoranda of appeal filed by them on behalf of the State Government which arose within the region for which the Government Pleaders were authorised to act and appear on behalf of the State Government. It is true that on formation of the State of madhya Pradesh the practice of filing such vakalatnamas has been insisted upon and is as far as I am aware being followed. The lapse in this particular case on the part of Shri Diwan could in my opinion be remedied by allowing Shri Diwan to file a vakalatnama duly signed by the Collector Gwalior even after the presentation of the appeal by him. (See Sheik Palat v. Sarwan Sahu, AIR 1920 Pat 581 ).