GANAPATI NANA POWAR Vs. JIVANABAI SUBANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point urged in support of this appeal is that the power of attorney, on the strength of which the suit was filed, is a special power of attorney and not a general power of attorney within the meaning of the rule as framed by this Court, which is as follows :- THE recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are persona holding general powers-of-attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.

(2.) WE are by no means clear in this case that the words used in the power of attorney are not sufficient to constitute it a valid general power of attorney. But assuming in favour of the appellants that the words are not sufficient to constitute it a general power of attorney, the objection is covered by Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and as it is an error, defect of irregularity in the proceedings in the suit not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of this Court, we do not think that we would be justified in disturbing the decree appealed from on that ground. The decision of this Court in Charles Palmer V/s. Sorabji Jamshedji (1886) P.J. 63, which related to Section 578 in the Code of 1882, corresponding to Section 99 of the present Code, supports this view. WE, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.