PETITIONERS PIanitifi' Non-appHcant No. v RESPONDENTS Defendante Noii-applicanfa No. 6 tol2. 1. Mangal, S/o Somnath, aged about 50 years. 2. Kailash Bai, W/o Bulloo, Aged about 65 years. 3. Gauesh, S/o Samaru, Aged about 55 years. 4, Ramlal, S/o Samaroo, Aged about 53 years. 5. Ramadhar, S/o Samaroo, aged about 50 years. All are by Caste Gond, anfl Cultivator, Residents of Village aud Tahsil Narharpur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG). VER8.US 1. Kangalu, S/o Vishwanatli Gond, aged about 55 years, Resident of Village UiTiradaha, Tahsil Narharpur. 2. Daroo S/o Fuatu Gond, Aged about 69 years, Resident of Village & Tahsil Narharpur. 3. Beer Singh, S/o Firatu, Aged about 65 years, Resident ofVillage & Tahsil Narhaipur. 4. Shivwati, D/o Mangalu Gohd, aged about 35 years Resident ofvillage Bevarti, Tahsil Kanker. 5. Rajmotin, Wd/o Dhira Gond, aged about 65 years. 6. Khedi Bai, D/o Dhira Gond, aged about 45 years. 7. Manai Bai, D/o Dhira Gond, aged about 43 years. 8. Sonai Bai, D/o Dhira Gond, aged about 41 years. 9. Sonsir Bai D/o Dhira Gond, aged about 39 years. 10. Sonbati, D/o Dhira Gond, aged about 37 years. 11. Sohata Bai D/o Dhira Gond, aged about 34 years. AI1 are cultivators, atad No. 5 to 11 Resident of Village & Talisil Narharpur, All are District North Bastar Kanker, (CG). (WEIT PETITION UNDER ARIICLE 227 OF THE CONSTnzmON OF INDIA) (SS: Hon'Ue JMr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Present : Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Noae for the respondeats. ^ kth (Passed on 10"' day ofDecember, 2008) With tfae consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. Leamed eounsel appearing for fhe plamtifi7petitioners raised the point fhat inthe application fiied bythe applicant No. 1 to 4 under Section 151 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'), Vakalatnama, as well as application do not contaia signatures ofall the defendaats. The trial court, after hearing the petitioners, came to flie conclusion that it is doubtful as to whether all the defendaats have sigaed or put their thumb marks on the Vakalatnama and also on fhe applicatioii. This question can be decided at fhe time ofhearing; accordingly, tfae application was rejected. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue with regard to filing of Vakalatoama and signatures on the application has to be decided at the first instance before proceeding with the matter on merit. Notice is not beingissued to ofher side, as no prejudice would be caused if the ti-ial court examines the facts as to whefher a!l the defendants have signed or put thumb impression on Vakalatnama and also on the application. It is therefore desirable that tirstly the issue of signing or puttmg thumb marks on fhe Vakalatnama or on the application may be decided before proceeding with the matter on merit. With fhe above direction, the petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- Satish I&Agnihotri Judge