JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - This revision is against the order dated July 30, 1973 passed by J.O. Soraon, Allahabad in a case under Section 209 of Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. It appears that Smt. Parbati filed a suit of ejectment against Asha Ram and others. The defendants took certain technical pleas which are given below:- (i) That the thumb-impression of the plaintiff has not been verified by Sri D.N. Sinha, lawyer. (ii) That the Vakalatnama in favour of the above lawyer has not been accepted by him. (iii) That the plaintiff Smt. Parbati who is a widow has not presented the plaint in person, and therefore, the plaintiff is fictitious. (iv) That the thumb-impression of the plaintiff on the Vakalatnama has not been attested as enjoined by Order III, Rule 4(4), C.P.C. 3. I am of the view that these are technical arguments and they have been raised to deprive the plaintiff who is a widow of her rights. She is an illiterate lady and such mistakes are bound to creep in if she has not been property guided by her lawyer or any other literate person conversant with the business of the court. As regards the first objection I find that the lawyer, Sri D.N. Sinha has put his signature just below the thumb-impression of the widow on the plaint, but he had forgotten to put the word 'verified' This mistake cannot be fastened on the widow in order to dismiss her case. This is a mistake committed by the learned lawyer and the lady should bot be allowed to suffer for it. It can be rectified by asking that learned lawyer to put the word 'verified'. 4. It is true that the learned lawyer has not written on the back of the Vakalatnama - 'accepted' which is generally done. Again this is a mistake on the part of the lawyer for which the plaintiff who is a widow and illiterate lady should not be penalised. This mistake can be rectified by asking the lawyer to accept the Vakalatnama. Moreover, I find that he has been conducting the case alright. He has signed the order sheet on every date. This shows his acceptance. This is just a technical error not necessitating the throwing off of the plaint. 5. It has been urged that the lady had not presented the plaint in person. Moreover, I find that he has been conducting the case alright. He has signed the order sheet on every date. This shows his acceptance. This is just a technical error not necessitating the throwing off of the plaint. 5. It has been urged that the lady had not presented the plaint in person. I am afraid this is not necessary once a Vakalatnama has been filed. The learned counsel can himself file the plaint on behalf of the lady. 6. It has next been urged that the thumb-impression on the Vakalatnama of the lady has not been attested by any person. This should be done as enjoined by Order III, Rule 4(4) of the C.P.C. In my opinion this is not necessary because that rule says that the High Court can make an amendment to enforce it, but no such amendment has been made by the Allahabad High Court. 7. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. 8. It has been vehemently argued before me that the lady in question is a fictitious person. This can be checked by the trial court by asking the lady to present herself. I hereby direct the trial court to do so.