Curable defect in power of attorney allowed retrospective validation of execution filing, defeating the limitation objection.

Where a recognised agent filed an execution application and the attorney's name had been omitted by mistake from the power of attorney, the omission was treated as a curable irregularity. The High Court stated that it had inherent power to permit amendment of the authority on a proper application, and that such amendment could operate retrospectively where no substantial rights were prejudiced. Once corrected, the authority related back to the original filing, so the execution proceeding was validated from its inception and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an execution application filed by a recognised agent whose name had been omitted by mistake from the power-of-attorney could be validated by subsequent amendment of the authority so as to save limitation.

Analysis: The provisions governing appearances and applications by recognised agents and duly appointed pleaders were treated as permitting written authority for a mukhtiar. Where the name of the attorney was omitted by mistake, the Court held that it possessed inherent power to allow amendment of the power-of-attorney on proper application. Such amendment was not inconsistent with procedural law, because amendments are within judicial discretion, may be allowed when they do not prejudice substantial rights, and may operate retrospectively when the defect goes only to the authority of the person who presented the application. The omission was therefore treated as a curable irregularity, and once corrected the execution proceeding stood validated from its original filing.

Conclusion: The execution application was competent and within time after the amendment of the authority, and the objection based on limitation failed.

---