KAILASH CHANDRA KAR Vs. HARADHAN CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of a suit that was brought by one Keshab Chandra Kar and his widowed sister-in-law, Shashi Mukhi Dasya. They were represented by a Pleader named Kuloda Proshad Mukerjee. On the 14th June 1911, an application was filed by this gentleman for permission to withdraw the suit with leave to sue again. The application was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and was not opposed, the dispute before him being confined to the question of costs, and ultimately the petition was granted.

(2.) The plaintiffs then obtained a rule from this Court on the opposite party to show cause why this order should not be set aside, and it was argued on their behalf that the order was bad, firstly, because Shashi Mukhi did not join in it; secondly, because Kuloda Proshad Mukerjee was not authorised by the vakalatnamah to file such a petition, and thirdly, on the ground that the reasons stated in the petition were not sufficient to justify its being granted.

(3.) We do not think that, in the circumstances of the present case, we ought to exercise our revisional powers in setting aside the order. The vakalatnamah authorised the Pleader "to choose arbitrators, prefer objections to awards, file solenamah or rafanamah when necessary and do all necessary acts in connection with the suit that will be for our benefit and the said acts will be deemed as done by ourselves." When such wide powers were specifically given to the Pleader, we are inclined to think that the words "all necessary acts" should legitimately be construed as including an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1.