NEHRU YUVAK KENDRA SANGTHAN Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, dismissing the appeal on the ground that the same was not validly instituted as it was neither signed by the appellants nor any Vakalatnama in favour of the counsel was filed.

(2.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the view taken by the Additional District Judge, is not sustainable. In Shastri Yagnapurushdas ji and Ors. v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya, A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 1119 where memo of appeal and vakalatnama were presented in the High Court, by the Assistant Government Pleader working in the same office and the irregularity was not noticed by the Registrar and the appeal was admitted, it was held that no party could be made to suffer for mistake of the Court or its office, if the memo of appeal was technically irregular. In the present case, it has not been disputed before me that the appeal was admitted and notice was issued to the respondent by the appellate Court, inspite of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the Court, by the Superintendent that power-of-attorney was not attached but only memo of appearance was filed. After the defect was noticed by the Court, the Court or the Superintendent, should have insisted upon the production of Vakalatnama dully executed by the appellants In somewhat similar circumstances it was held by the Madras High Court in Kaliyur M. Srinivasachariar v. The Chairman Taxation Appeals Committee, A. I. R. 1964 Mad. 235, that if the appeal was defective in any manner, it was the elementary duty of the body entrusted with the hearing of the appeals to have intimated the appellant and to have permitted the defect to be rectified

(3.) THE fact in Pat Ram etc. v. Ekam Singh etc. , 1971 Cur. L. J. 294, were somewhat distinct Moreover, the appeal having been dismissed on the point of technicality alone, this Court is dismissed to put seal on the judgment.