Skip to content


Mahomed Jafer Vs. Sheikh Ahmed - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Application No. 831 of 1924
Judge
Reported in(1926)28BOMLR538; 95Ind.Cas.266
AppellantMahomed Jafer
RespondentSheikh Ahmed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order iii, rule 1 -appeal filed without vakilptra-vakilpatra filed subsequently-execuse of delay.;where an appeal is tiled in court by a pleader, his non-filing of the vakilpatra does not prevent the appeal from being an appeal properly preferred.; where a vakilpatra is not filed with an appeal, the proper practice for the appellant is to apply to the court as soon as it is filed for leave to take the appeal on the file. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner..........vakilpatra having been signed, so that it would appear 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 be excused. the only result is that the hearing of the appeal is delayed because as a matter of course the delay is always excused.2. 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.3. in this case delay will be excused. the appellant will have to pay.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The appellant filed this appeal with all the documents prescribed by Order XLI, 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 III, 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 where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf.' 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 appear 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 be excused. The only result is that the hearing of the appeal is delayed because as a matter of course the delay is always excused.

2. 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.

3. In this case delay will be excused. The appellant will have to pay the opponents' costs of the rule.

Coyajee, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //