Unauthorised presentation of an execution application is an irregularity, not a nullity, when the defect is curable.

A defective execution application presented by a pleader without authority in the prescribed form under Order 3 Rule 4 CPC was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity. The defect went to the mode of presentation rather than the existence of the application itself, and the objection was capable of being waived. Where the application was otherwise in order and was accepted by the court, later compliance could cure the absence of a vakalat at the time of filing. The discussion aligns with the view that procedural rules governing presentation are directory unless strict prior authorisation is made indispensable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the presentation of an execution application by a pleader who had not been given authority in the prescribed manner under Order 3, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a nullity or only an irregularity capable of being cured later.

Analysis: The right to seek execution under Order 21 requires an application by the decree-holder, and Order 3 governs the manner in which such an application may be made through a pleader. The absence of a vakalat at the time of presentation means the pleader was not duly authorised to act, but the defect concerns the mode of presentation rather than the existence of the application itself. The provision was treated as directory in this context, the objection was waivable, and where the application was otherwise in order and accepted by the Court, the defect could be cured by later compliance. The preponderance of authority supported treating such defective presentation as an irregularity and not as a jurisdictional nullity.

Conclusion: The presentation of the execution application without authority in the prescribed manner was not a nullity but only an irregularity capable of being cured subsequently.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural rule regulating presentation of an application does not expressly make strict prior authorization indispensable, a presentation by an unauthorised pleader is an irregularity rather than a nullity if the defect is curable and does not go to jurisdiction.

---