ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises- out of a suit u/s 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. 2. One Smt. Gyana filed a suit for declaration of her tenancy right against the Zamindars and other persons who claimed themselves to be holding through the Zamindars. Smt. Gyana died during the pendency of the suit and the Petitioner applied to be treaty as a legal representative being her heir under the U.P. Tenancy Act. The claim of the Petitioner to continue the sitft as Smt. Gyana's legal representative was not accepted by the trial court; hence the Petitioner filed a revision before, the Board of Revenue through Sri Ram Swarup Gupta a Vakil of Aligarh. The Board of Revenue accepted the peti tioner to be the legal representative of Smt. Gyana and directed the case to be proceeded within the trial court. 3. Sri Ram Swarup Gupta, Vakil, who represented the Petitioner at the revisional stage prosecuted the case on his behalf in the trial court. The Judicial Officer dismissed the suit by his order dated 29th January 1959. Thereafter an appeal was filed on behalf of the Petitioner through Sri Ram Swarup Gupta. Sri Gupta, however, did not,, file any Vakalatnama along with the appeal which was preferred before the Additional Commissioner. 4. At the time of hearing of the appeal. a preliminary objection was raised that the appeal was incompetent on the ground that Sri Ram. Swarup Gupta was not legally entitled to file the appeal without a Vakalatnama. The learned Additional Commissioner upheld this objection and dismissed the appeal by his order dated 18th May, 1960. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a second (appeal before the Board of Revenue and this second appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 10th August 1961. 5. This is against the decisions of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner that this writ petition has been filed. The contention of the learned Counsel" for the Petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the appeal as incompetent for the reason that no Vakalatnama had been filed along with the appeal. He further submitted that the Board of Revenue also committed and mistake apparent on the face of the Record in upholding the order of opposite party No. 2. 6. He further submitted that the Board of Revenue also committed and mistake apparent on the face of the Record in upholding the order of opposite party No. 2. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on this point and I am of opinion that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has force and should be accepted. The statement of facts given above would show that Sri Ram Swarup Gupta, Vakil, Aligarh (now Advocate) was engaged by the Petitioner through a Vakalatnama dated 26th January 1951 to conduct the case of the Petitioner. A copy of the said Vakalatnama is Annexure 'A' on the record. A perusal of the Vakalatnama would show that Sri Gupta was engaged not only to do the Pairvi in the revision before the Board of Revenue but the terms of the Vakalatnama were wide enough to include all the proceedings subsequent to the revision in respect of the property in suit. He was through the Vakalatnama even authorised to institute, if need be, another suit in respect of that property and was fur there authorized to execute the decree, to file plaint, written statement and to prefer appeal. In short he was given wide powers and was appointed special attorney for the purposes of the litigation in respect of the property in suit.. In face of such wide powers having been given by the Vakalatnama aforesaid it is clear that the said Advocate was fully competent to prosecute the case of the Petitioner in the trial court and was fully competent to prefer appeal against the decision of the trial court. If a Vakil is appointed through a Vakalatnama which gives extensive powers to the Vakil concerned, that is a matter exclusively between the client and the Vakil and if they bad entered into that contract that has to be respected and in my opinion in view of the contract entered into between the Petitioner and his counsel it cannot be said that the said Vakil had no authority to prefer the appeal before apposite party No. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner had not at all cared to see the terms of the Vakalatnama. He has based his judgment only on the interpretation of Order III, Rule 4 of the CPC which reads as follows: 4. The learned Additional Commissioner had not at all cared to see the terms of the Vakalatnama. He has based his judgment only on the interpretation of Order III, Rule 4 of the CPC which reads as follows: 4. (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment. (2) Every such appointment shall be filed in court and shall be deeped to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as7regards the client. (3) For the purpose of Sub-rule (2) an application for review of judgment, an application u/s 144 or Section 152 of this Code, any appeal from any decree or order in the suit and any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of monies paid into the Court it connection with the suit shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit. (4) The High Court may by general order, direct that, where the person by whom a pleader is appointed is unable to write his name, his mark upon, the document appointing the pleader shall be attested by such person and in such manner as may be specified by the order. (5) No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in Court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating- (a) the names of the parties to the suit, (b) the name of the party for whom he appears, and (c) the name of the person by whom lie is authorized to appear: Provided that nothing in this sub rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any (sic) pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of Such party 7. The wordings of sub Clause (2) are important. It shows that once a Vakalatnama has been filed in court it shall remain in force until determined as provided in that rule or until all proceedings in the suit are ended So far as regards the client. Appeal is also proceeding in continuation of a suit. Therefore once a Vakalatnama has been filed the Vakil concerned is competent to prefer the appeal and to do necessary Pairvi till the proceed lags are finally terminated. The reason given by the learned Additional Commissioner for not accepting the appeal as competent is that it a Vakalatnama had been filed in a suit it would have endured to the benefit of the party concerned in all its stages as contemplated by sub Clause (3) of Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but if the Vakalatnama had been filed at an appellate or revisional stage it cannot be utilized backwards. In my opinion this view of the Additional Commissioner is not justified by the language of Rule 4. In sub Clause (2) of Rule 4 we find the word used as 'Court' where in the Vakalatnama has to be filed. "The word 'Court' would include the Court of first instance as well as the appellate and the revisional court; as such a Vakalatnama having been filed at whatsoever stage whether it is in the trial court or appellate court or revisional court the consequences given in Rule 4 sub Clause (2) will follow. 8. The other reason given by the Additional Commissioner for holding the appeal incompetent was that there was a rule in Revenue Court Manual for filing a separate Vakalatnama in revisions before the Board of Revenue. That rule h only made for convenience sake. The reason being that it would be convenient to inform the person who filed the revision about the proceeding of that court. That rule which has been made for convenience sake cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of the Petitioner. No such rule appears to have been made so far as the filing of appeal in the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner's court is concerned. This being so the second reason given by the Additional Commissioner does not appear to be son (sic). No such rule appears to have been made so far as the filing of appeal in the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner's court is concerned. This being so the second reason given by the Additional Commissioner does not appear to be son (sic). The learned Additional Commissioner appears to have made distinction between an appeal and a revision also, because there being no mention of the word 'revising in sub Clause (3) of Rule 4. He considers that Vakalatnama filed in revision; could not authorise the learned Vakil to file the appeal before the Additional Commissioner. Non mention of the word 'revision' in sub Clause (3) of Rule 4 does not affect the position. For 'revision' has also been considered to. be included in the word 'appeal' vide Bhagwan Das v. Shri Ganga Prasad (1) ( 1958 AWR 759 ) where the wo(sic) 'appellate jurisdiction'have been com(sic) sidered to be wide and comprehensive enough to include revisional jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in placing his reliance on J.P. Ojha v. firm R.R. Tandon and Anr. (2) ( 1962 AWR 471 ) where in it was held that a pleader who had filed his Vakalatnama in a suit was competent to file an application in revision and for that purpose Order in Rule 4 sub Clauses (2) and (3) were relied. It was further held in that case that such objections should be taken at the earliest opportunity and if not taken it should not be permitted to be raised at the final stage. If the court considered that an appeal could not be filed without a fresh Vakalatnama the appeal should not have been admitted without having decided that matter. Once having admitted the appeal it is not. at all proper to reject the appeal on that ground atone. 9. This Court in a Full Bencn decision Kanbaiya Lal v. Panchayati Akhara (3) (1949 AWR 217) has held that the act of defective presentation does not amount to any illegality. It is a mere irregularity. That being so if the Commissioner came t" the conclusion that there was defect in the presentation of the appeal he should have afforded an opportunity to the Appellant to have filed a Vakalatnama and should not have dismissed the appeal as incompetent. It is a mere irregularity. That being so if the Commissioner came t" the conclusion that there was defect in the presentation of the appeal he should have afforded an opportunity to the Appellant to have filed a Vakalatnama and should not have dismissed the appeal as incompetent. Courts should not lean towards technicalities but should try to db substantial justice, on the merits often case as has been; emphasized by the Supreme Court Vide Pratap Singh v. Sri Krishna Gupta and Ors. (4) (1956 S.C. 140). 10. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has supported the judgment of opposite parties; Nos. I and 2 by citing an authority Padam Chand and Others Vs. Ram Lal and Another, AIR 1953 HP 11 . The relevant paragraph is 6 In this authority the same reasons are given as has been given by the Additional Commissioner which in my opinion are not correct With great respect to the learned Judge who decided this case, I am of opinion, that this authority does not correctly interpret Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I cannot agree that if a Vakalatnama has been filed In an appeal and there is an order of remand the Vakalatnama cannot authorize the Vakil to conduct the case in the trial court on the ground that his Vakalatnama comes to an end with the decision of the appeal for which purpose he was engaged. It would have been different if the Vakalatnama had restricted the powers of the Vakil to the conduct of that Appellant. 11. On a consideration of the law on the point I am of opinion that the opp. parties Nos. 1 and 2 have committed a mistake, apparent on the face of the record in refusing to entertain the appeal on merits. Consequently this petition has to be allowed. 12. In the result this writ petition Succeeds, the orders of opposite parties Nos. I and 2 dated 10th August 1961 and 18th May 1960 ate hereby quashed and opposite party No. 2 is directed to hear the appeal on merits. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs of this Court.