MAHOMED JAFER Vs. SHEIKH AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's pleader filed this appeal with all the, documents prescribed by Order 41, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, but without a Vakilpatra. He therefore, had to apply for leave after the Vakilpatra had been filed, calling on the opponents to show cause why delay should not be excused. Order 3, Rule 1, says: Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except whore otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, of by his recognized agent or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf.

(2.) An appeal may be presented by a pleader duly appointed to act on the appellant's behalf by virtue of the Vakilpatra having been signed, so that it would appeal that the non-filing of the Vakilpatra in Court would not prevent the appeal from being an appeal properly preferred. In any event I do not think there is any necessity for a rule in these cases being issued calling upon the opponents to show cause why the delay should not he excused. The only result is that the hearing of the appeal is delayed because as a matter of course the delay is always excused.

(3.) I think the proper practice is for the appellant, if a Vakilpatra is not filed with the appeal, to apply, to the Court as soon as it is filed for leave to take the appeal on the file. There will then be no necessity to serve any notices thereafter on the appellant.