J P OJHA Vs. FIRM R R TANDAN
LAWS(ALL)-1961-10-36
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 10,1961

J.P.OJHA Appellant
VERSUS
FIRM R.R.TANDAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

OM PRAKASH V. MOTI LAL [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS V. GANGA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BABULAL AND SONS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-1976-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHYAM SALES ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
JAISI RAM VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1971-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL JUNAID VS. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1972-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
ASMITA DHRUVA DHARASKAR VS. CITY OF NAGPUR CORPN., NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-1976-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
JAISI RAM VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-1970-5-45] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Mithan Lal, J. - (1.)This civil revision filed by the plaintiff arises out of an order passed by the learned District Judge, Aligarh, holding that the revision was not properly presented.
(2.)The facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Judge Small Cause Court, Aligarh, for recovery of Rs. 1,000/-. The suit was partly decreed and thereafter a revision was filed by the same counsel who had filed the suit without filing a fresh vakalatnama. The counsel made a note on the petition of revision that his vakalatnama was already on record in the original suit. The learned Judge passed an order that the revision was not properly presented because the vakalatnama filed in the lower court does not provide an 'express right' to the learned counsel to file a revision on behalf of the applicant and Order III Rule 4 (3) does not confer such a right. This order passed by the learned Judge in this case and several other cases, which are all fixed for hearing today, is totally erroneous.
(3.)It will appear from the vakalatnama filed in these cases that there is a clause permitting the lawyer to file an appeal, to make applications and to act on behalf of the client in all proceedings arising out of the suit. There are a number of other powers given in the vakalatnama. The view of the Judge appears to be that as the word 'revision' is not embodied as such in the vakalatnama the counsel is not authorised to file a revision. This view of the learned Judge appears to be too technical and in his own words there may not be any express right to the counsel to file a revision yet the right to file an appeal included a right to file a revision.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.