1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5131 OF 2009 Indumati Vrjlal Babaria & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. M/s.trinity Town Development & Finance Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.M.Oak i/b Mr.Sagar Joshi for the petitioners Ms Chandana Salgaonkar Radia for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs.A decree has been passed in the suit filed by the petitioners agianst the respondents. An application for setting aside the decree was filed by one Suhas Gosavi on behalf of the first respondent. 2 The petitioners by filing an application before the trial court raised a contention that the said Suhas has not produced any document to show that he was authorised by the first respondent to file the said application. It is prayed in the said application that a direction be issued to the first respondent to produce the entire chain of documents for establishing the right of the said Suhas to file the application on behalf of the first respondent. By the impugned order, the said application 2 has been disposed of. However, the learned trial Judge kept open the issue of authority of the said Suhas to be decided at the time of final hearing of the application for setting aside the decree. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the provisions of Chapter II of the Civil Manual and in particular paragraph 8 thereof. He pointed out that in absence of any power of attorney in favour of the person who purportedly filed the application on behalf of the first respondent, the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the said Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ought not to have been even registered and the same ought to have been returned. He submitted that in view of the provisions of the said paragraph 8 of Chapter II of the Civil Manual, the first respondent was under an obligation to produce the documents along with the application. He submitted that the issue could not have been postponed till the disposal of the application as the main application itself is not competent. He, therefore, submitted that the trial court ought to have allowed the application made by the petitioner. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. What is pointed out by the petitioners is the procedural rule forming part of the Civil Manual. The breach of such procedural rule is normally not fatal. Whether the 3 application filed by the first respondent was competent or not is an issue which will have to be decided at the time of hearing of the application made by the first respondent. The first respondent is bound to produce before the trial court the documents showing the authority of the person who has instituted the application to institute the application on behalf of the first respondent. If the documents are not produced, the trial court is bound to draw an adverse interference against the first respondent. 5 If it is established at the time of hearing of the application for setting aside the decree that the application filed by the first respondent was not competent, the trial court will naturally pass an order in accordance with law. 6 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE