R.S.Kejriwal, J. - (1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 7.12.1990, passed by learned Additional-District Judge No.1, Ajmer, by which he rejected the application of the petitioner dated 1.12.1990.
(2.) The relevants facts of the case are that the plaintiff- petitioner was suspended by the Government vide order dated 26.9.1990, and he was informed on the same day by letter and also by publication of the same in the news-papers. Another person was appointed on the post of the petitioner. Later on, on 5.10.1990, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the non- petitioners. Alongwith the plaint, he also filed an application for temporary injunction. The non-petitioners filed reply to the said application on 6.10.1990, and contested the application. The trial court vide its order dated 7.11.1990, allowed the application for temporary injunction and directed the non- petitioners not to disturb the petitioner where he was already serving before his suspension. Against this order of learned trial court, the non-petitioners filed a miscellaneous appeal before the learned District Judge, Amer, on 8.11.1990. The memo of appeal was signed by the officer-in-charge, appointed by the Government in this connection. The appeal was presented in the court of District Judge, Ajmer, by Shri Basant Vijayvargia, who was Public Prosecutor/Government Advocate on that day. The petitioner on 1.12.1990, submitted an application that the appeal was presented by Shri Basant Vijayvargia, without any Vakalatnama or power as required by Order 3 Rule 4 C.P.C, and as such the learned lower court should have rejected the appeal only on this short ground. The learned District Judge, vide its order dated 7.12.1990, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner has come in revision.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case and the authorities cited by them. it has been argued by Shri Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal presented by Shri Vijayvargia, without any Vakalatnama or authority-letter from the Govt. was not competent and should have been rejected only on this ground. In support of his argument, Shri Samdaria, placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Firm Mohanlal Ramchandra,v. The Union of India, AIR 1972 Raj. 152 .;