Achut Sitaram Patwardhan and Others vs Tarachand Chimniramshet Marwari

This appeal is not resisited by the respondent. It appears that the power-of-attorney has been given by the guard an of the minor Achut Sitaram Patwardhan. The guardian resides at Nagar and there is no objection as to the validity of the power-of-attorney. Order III, Rule 2, Clause (a), as altered by the rule made by this Court, enables a person holding a general power-of-attorney from a party not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance is made, authorising him to appear and act on behalf of the party, to so appear and act. We think that the order made by the learned Judge rejecting the darkhast is wrong. We, therefore, set that aside and remit the darkhast for disposal according to law.

We are informed by the Pleaders here that the parties have arrived at some compromise. That, however, is a matter which will be dealt with by the learned Judge below if it is put before him. He will have to consider the question whether the proposed compromise is for the benefit of the minor. Costs to be costs in the darkhast.