https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272517 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. en-us Sat, 08 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2018 11:54:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272517 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 08 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272517