JUDGMENT Kendall, J. - This is an appeal from an appellate order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Etah, reversing an order of the trial Court which had dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was neither a valid plaint nor a valid presentation thereof, and that the vakalatnama obtained in the name of the Plaintiff's pleader had not been duly filled up when it was signed by the Plaintiff. The suit was one for pre-emption and a plea was taken in the written statement that the signatures of the Plaintiff on the plaint and the vakalatnama were forged. On the date settled for issues viz. 14th December, 1931, the following day 15th December, 1931, was fixed for the decision of this issue relating to the form and presentation of the plaint and the vakalatnama, and it was decided shortly after that date. It is a fact therefore as the lower appellate Court has found that the Plaintiff was not given an opportunity of correcting any irregularity that there might have been in these documents. It was apparently for this reason that the lower appellate Court after referring to one or two decisions in which an irregularity or a bona fide mistake had been allowed to be corrected after the original presentation, o: the plaint, reversed the order of the Munsif. 2. It does no: appear to me however that any of those cases is analogous to the present one. According to the statement of the Plaintiff's pairokar, a blank form of the plaint and a blank form of the vakalatnama were sent to the Plaintiff by post. The Plaintiff signed both of them and the documents were subsequertly filled in on the responsibility of the pairokar. The Plaintiff himself did not know in the least what form the plaint was going to take, or who was to be appointed to act for him as his Vakil. 3. It has been pointed out that in the case of Wali Mohammad Khan v. Ishaq Ali Khan (1931) AIR 1931 All. 507 : 184 Ind. Cas. 26 : 1931 A.L.J. 777 (S.B.), a defective presentation of a plaint on account of failure to comply strictly with the provisions of Orders 3 and 4, CPC is a mere irregularity which can be cured by Section 99 or Order 6, Rule 17. 507 : 184 Ind. Cas. 26 : 1931 A.L.J. 777 (S.B.), a defective presentation of a plaint on account of failure to comply strictly with the provisions of Orders 3 and 4, CPC is a mere irregularity which can be cured by Section 99 or Order 6, Rule 17. This however is only on condition that the Plaintiff has acted in good faith and without gross negligence. It cannot be held in the present case that the Plaintiff acted without gross negligence, when he did not even care to ascertain what form the plaint would take or who would represent him as Counsel. In a later decision of this Court Chhita Vs. Mt. Jaffo and Others it was held that when the name of the pleader had through oversight been omit ;ed from the body of the Vakalatnama, there was no valid appointment and the plaint presented by him was unauthorized. Where the legislature insisted upon the execution of a formal document" their Lordships remarked "there can be no appointment unless the formality has been duly complied with, and the written authority in favour of a definite individual or individuals by name cannot be dispensed with on the ground that the enacted rule is a mere technical rule of procedure. 4. I must hold in the present case therefore that there was no proper appointment and no proper presentation of the plaint, and the plaint itself was invalid. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, and restore that of the Munsif. The Appellant will receive his costs in all Courts from the Respondent.