SATHEESH KUMAR Vs. FAMILY COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Background:

(2.) But the registry noted certain defects in the Petition (Ext. P1) and returned it on 18.08.2016, perhaps, for the party to cure the defects. The defects the registry noted are these: (1) The vakalathnama (Ext.P2) was not attested by an advocate" (2) M.C., filed by the petitioner's daughter, has no power of attorney attached.

(3.) Sri N. Satheesh Kumar, Savithri's counsel, has agreed to cure the second defect. As to the first defect, he took a plea that he filed the vakalathnama in a proper form satisfying all the legal formalities under the Rule 27 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1971.