JUDGMENT : RAFIQ, J. The plaintiffs appellants brought a suit in the court of the Munsif of Bulandshahr for possession of certain abadi land. The claim was decided against them and an appeal was filed on their behalf in the court of the District Judge of Aligarh on the 10th July, 1911. The appeal was filed by one Munshi Abdul Salam Khan, Vakil, who at the same time filed his vakalatnama also. The case was heard by the Additional Judge who remanded it to the lower court for the trial of certain issues. The remand order was made on the 4th August, 1911. The Munsif returned the case with his findings on the 28th November, 1911. The parties filed cross objections on the 13th and 19th December, 1911. The case was again remanded on the 22nd January, 1912. The Munsif submitted his second finding on the 2nd March, 1912. On the 13th. April, 1912, the respondent filed objections to the finding submitted by the Munsif. Munshi Abdul Salam Khan died prior to the submission of the first finding by the learned Munsif. The appeal was heard on the 1st July, 1912, when a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the memorandum of appeal had not been properly presented to the Court of the District Judge, inasmuch as the name of Abdul Salam Khan was not mentioned in the body of the vakalatnama. The learned Additional Judge accepted the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff's appellants have come up in second appeal to this Court. It is contended on their behalf that the omission of the name of Vakil in the body of the vakalatnama was due to an oversight and that considering that the objection was taken by the respondent at a very late stage, it should not have been given effect to. There can be no doubt that the omission of the name of Abdul Salam Khan from the body of the vakalatnama must have been due to an oversight. But the question is whether such a mistake can be condoned and the appeal can be considered as properly presented. The case of Pokhpal Singh v. Damber Singh,[1909] 6 A.L.J. (Notes), 110 is against the contention for the appellants. But the question is whether such a mistake can be condoned and the appeal can be considered as properly presented. The case of Pokhpal Singh v. Damber Singh,[1909] 6 A.L.J. (Notes), 110 is against the contention for the appellants. It was held in that case that a pleader whose name was omitted in the body of the vakalatnama was not duly appointed and that an appeal presented by him was not properly presented. If Munshi Abdul Salam was not duly appointed by the plaintiffs appellants and if the appeal filed by him was not properly presented, the facts that the objection was not taken till a very late stage in the case would not validate the presentation of the appeal. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed, but considering the special circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.