State vs Ghulam Nabi Gojri

On this appeal coming up f 01 admission toady, Mr. Johal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection

about the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the same has been filed improperly, in as much as Mr. D.S.Chouhan, learned Advocate

who has filed the appeal purportedly on behalf of the appellants, has done without any power of attorney from them.

A perusal of the memorandum of the appeal and the record shows that Mr. Chouhan presented this appeal on 27.11.195 before the Deputy

Registrar, of this Court, The appeal, as is clear from its cause title, has been filed by three appellants, namely,(l) State of J and K through the

Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Labour Department, J and K, Jammu (2) Labour Commissioner, Jammu and (3) Dy. Labour Commissioner

(Central) J and K Jammu. the power of attorney filed by Mr. Chouhan alonwith the memorandum of appeal has been signed by some person

above the word ""client"" When this was shown to Mr. Chouhan, he identified the signature of the person as that of Dy. Labour Commissioner

(Central) J and K, Jammu. It means that the only power of attorney filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal has been signed by the Dy. Labour

Commissioner (Central) J and K, Jammu. Mr. Johal points out that the Dy. Commissioner (Central) J and K Jammu was not a party in the1 writ

petition. Mr. Chouhan does not contest this factual assertion. It, therefore, comes out that a person who was not party in the writ petition has been

impleaded as appellant in this appeal without seeking the leave for the Court, Thus, these the were parties in the writ petition have chosed to file

appeal through Mr. D.S.Chouhan but without executing any power of attorney in his favour.

Under Order 3 Rule 1 read with 0.4 R.I of Civil Procedure Code appeals can be filed by parties through counsel or recognised agent only if the

parties have executed valid power of attorney in favour of the counsel or the recognised agent. In the present case this mandatory requirement of

Law has not been compiled with by the appellants.

There is yet one more reason which goes against the appellants. Where as in the writ petition two more persons, namely, (1) Mohd. Ashraf ad

(2) Bashir Ahmad were respondents, for the reasons unknown and unexplained, the appellants have chosen not to implead them as the

respondents in this appeal. The memorandum of the appeal, therefore, suffers from the mischief of nonjoinder of the necessary and proper parties

as well because all such persons, who were parties in the writ petition, are necessary and proper parties in the appeal as well.

For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the memo of appeal is rejected.