JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J.:- This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 2. A suit for rendition of account of 750 popular trees which stood planted in the land located in village Gulab Nagar, Jagadhri, were allegedly cut, removed and sold by the defendant, was filed by the plaintiff. Further prayer therein is for recovery of the amount that may be found due and payable to the plaintiff on rendition of account. The suit has been dismissed. 3. The appellant carried an appeal. 4. During hearing of the appeal an objection was taken by the respondent-defendant that the appeal deserves to be dismissed on technical grounds as the same has neither been signed by the appellant nor her pleader. The signatures of Raghvinder Singhal, who has signed the memorandum of appeal on behalf of the plaintiff are not to be considered in law as no application has been filed to allow the appeal to be filed through power of attorney. 5. The first Appellate Court without considering on merits the issues involved in the suit, has dismissed the appeal. It has been held that Raghvinder Singhal had the power of attorney, however, because permission of the Court had not been sought to appear act and plead on behalf of the appellant, therefore, could not be recognised. The appeal had not been filed by the pleader, who, however, by virtue of vakalatnama earlier entrusted to him at the time of filing of the plaint was competent to do so. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that right to appeal of the appellant has been denied on mere technicalities. It is not in dispute that appellant was represented by Sh.JS Deswal, Advocate. Issues have been framed and noticed in the impugned judgment, however, no findings thereupon have been returned. It is further contended that admittedly Sh. Raghvinder Singhal, had the power and authority and was the competent person to engage an Advocate, produce oral and documentary evidence in Court and was also authorised to file appeal against final order upto the Supreme Court of India. A reference has also been made to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, 2006(1)RCR (Civil) 18. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, has not addressed any arguments and has simply prayed for adjournment. 8. A reference has also been made to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, 2006(1)RCR (Civil) 18. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, has not addressed any arguments and has simply prayed for adjournment. 8. Service was complete as on 24.8.2007. Therefore, no ground for further adjournment in this appeal that relates to February 2006 is made out. 9. I have gone through the impugned judgment. 10. In Para 13 of the impugned judgment it has been noticed that vakalatnama was entrusted with Sh. JS Deswal, Advocate, when he appeared in the trial Court and filed the suit. The contents of the vakalatnama show that he was permitted by the appellant to sign and plead and present the appeal on her behalf. 11. The contents of the power or attorney in favour of Raghvinder Singhal have also been noticed in para-16 of the judgment. The reproduced portion shows that he was authorised to sign and verify plaints, applications, affidavits, proceedings engage advocate, produce oral and documentary evidence in Court and give a statement in the Court on behal of the appellant. He was also authorised to file appeal/revision of any interim order and final order upto the Supreme Court of India. 12. The First Appellant Court has not accepted the appeal as having been properly filed while holding that the memorandum of appeal had not been signed by Sh. JS Deswal, Advocate. With regard to the power of attorney holder i.e. Sh. Raghvinder Singhal it has been held under Order 3 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party must file a petition before the Court concerned to seek permission to allow the power of attorney holder to appear and plead. 13. When the facts are collectively considered, I find that so as to cure the technical defects pointed out by learned counsel for respondent, an application had been filed on 11.6.2005 for acknowledging the act of the pleader and the attorney regarding filing of the appeal. In Uday Shankar’s case (supra), exact reference to paras 15,16, 17 and 20 is required. The paras are reproduced as under:­ 15. In Uday Shankar’s case (supra), exact reference to paras 15,16, 17 and 20 is required. The paras are reproduced as under:­ 15. It is, thus, now well settled that any defect in signing the memorandum of appeal or any defect in the authority of the person signing the memorandum of appeal, or the omission to file the vakalatnama executed by the appellant, along with, the appeal, will not invalidate the memorandum of appeal, if such omission or defect is not deliberate and the signing of the Appeal memorandum or the presentation thereof before the appellant court was with the knowledge and authority of the appellant. Such omission or defect being one relatable to procedure, it can subsequently be corrected. It is the duty of the Office to verify whether the memorandum of appeal was signed by the appellant or his authorized agent or pleader holding appropriate vakalatnama. If the Office does not point out such defect and the appeal is accepted and proceeded with, it cannot be rejected at the hearing of the appeal merely by reason of such defect, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to rectify it. The requirement that the appeal should be signed by the appellant or his pleader (duly authorized by a vakalatnama executed by the appellant, is no doubt, mandatory. But it does not mean that non­compliance should result in automatic rejection of the appeal without an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the defect. If and when the defect is noticed or pointed out, the court should, either on an application by the appellant or suo motu permit the appellant to rectify the defect by either signing the memorandum of appeal or by furnishing the vakalatnama. It should also be kept in view that if the pleader signing the memorandum of appeal has appeared for the party in the trial court, then he need not present a fresh Vakalatnama along with memorandum of appeal, as the Vakalatnama in his favour filed in the trial Court will be sufficient authority to sign and present the memorandum of appeal having regard to Rule 4(2) 01 Order 3 CPC, read with Explanation |C| thereto. In such an event, a mere memo referring to the authority given to him in the trial court may be sufficient. In such an event, a mere memo referring to the authority given to him in the trial court may be sufficient. However, filing a fresh vakalatnama with the memo of appeal will always be convenient to facilitate the processing of the appeal by the office. 16. An analogous provision is to be found in Order 6 Rule 14 CPC which requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any. Here again, it has always been recognized that if a plaint is not signed by the plaintiff or his duly authorized agent due to any bona fide error, the defect can be permitted to be rectified either by the trial court at any time before judgment, or even by the appellate court by permitting appropriate amendment, when such defect comes to its notice during hearing. 17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well recognized exceptions to this principle are:- (i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non­compliance. (ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it: (iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous; (iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court. (v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is complete, absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant; xx xx xx xx xx 20. There is yet another reason to hold that the appeal by DCC against the eviction decree was validly filed. DCC was represented by Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh and his colleagues in the trial court. The same counsel filed the appeal. There is yet another reason to hold that the appeal by DCC against the eviction decree was validly filed. DCC was represented by Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh and his colleagues in the trial court. The same counsel filed the appeal. The vakalatnama granted by DCC in favour of the said counsel in the trial court was sufficient authorization to the said counsel to file the appeal having regard to Order 3 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Explanation [c] even without a separate vakalatnama for the appeal. 14. The provisions of Order 3 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil procedure are required to be considered in the context of the issue involved in this case. The relevant provisions as applicable under Order 3 Rule 4 (1) and (2) are reproduced here under: Appointment of Pleader.- (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 power­of-attorney to make such appointment. (2)Every such appointment shall be [filed in Court and shall, for the purpose of sub rule (1), be,] deemed 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 as regards the client. [Explanation.- For the purpose or this sub-rule. the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit.­ (a) an application for the review of decree or order in the suit, (b) an application under section 144 or under section 152 of this Code, in relation to any decree or order made in the suit. (c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and (d) any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or for obtaining refund of moneys paid into the Court in connection with the suit. 15. The respondent-defendant has not been able to bring any material to show that the omission to file the vakalatnama and sign the memorandum of appeal were deliberate acts of the appellant. 15. The respondent-defendant has not been able to bring any material to show that the omission to file the vakalatnama and sign the memorandum of appeal were deliberate acts of the appellant. The procedural defect was curable and an application was filed to cure the same when during the hearing of the appeal the defect was pointed out. Since the office/registry did not point out the defect at the time of filing of the appeal, when the same was pointer out during hearing of the appeal, the same was curable on filing of an application which was done by the appellant. The application should have been allowed and rights of the appellant should not have been allowed to suffer at the altar of procedure and technicalities. 16. Considering the law as noticed above, I find that the First Appellate Court wrongly ignored the vakalatnama in favour of the counsel given at the time of filing the plaint. The vakalatnama was sufficient authorisation to the counsel to file the appeal under the provisions noticed above and also in terms of Uday Shankar’s case (supra) 17. Other than the above, the power of attorney contents whereof have been noticed hereinabove clearly reflect that Sh. Raghvinder Singhal, had the authority to file appeal on behalf of the appellant. So far as the permission of Court is concerned, an application as noticed above was filed to cure defect on 11.6.2005. Despite all these facts, the appeal has been dismissed on technicalities. The impugned judgment, therefore, is clearly against the recognized principals of law. The right to file an appeal cannot be denied on such technicalities particularly having regard to the facts noticed above. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive right of a party. It is often noticed position in law that procedure is a hand-maiden to justice and should never be made to a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice. 18. In view of above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, at Jagadhri, dated 3.10.2005 is hereby set aside. The case is restored to the District Judge, with a direction to decide the matter on merits. In view of the delay already caused, it is further directed that the appeal be decided within six months. The parties are directed to appear before District Judge, on 31.1.2008. ———————