Baharul Islam, J. - (1.) We have heard learned Attorney-General for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. K. J. John for the respondents.
(2.) In our opinion, this is not a matter which should have been dealt with in a highly technical manner as has been done by the High Court. To identify the hypertechnicality resorted to by the High Court, a few facts may be stated.
(3.) Respondents filed a suit against the appellants and the suit ended in a declaration that the present appellants have no right to charge the amount claimed and a refund was decreed to the extent of Rs. 70,897. Against this decree in favour of the respondents, the appellants preferred an appeal, being FA 1248/1972, in the High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench). During the pendency of the appeal from 1972 to 1978, it transpired that the letter of authority (Vakalatnama) of the learned advocate appearing for the present appellants, was not placed on record. It appears that there was an order to remove this defect and the order appeared to be of a peremptory character. Probably, there was some laxity on the part of the appellants and the defect was not removed and the appeal was dismissed on Jan. 2, 1978 on the short ground of failure to remove the defect and non-compliance with the peremptory order No. 10 made by the Court on Sept. 30, 1975.;