Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner claiming to be the General Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League, filed a memo in the suit in O.S.No.3104 of 2010 filed by the first respondent herein against respondents 2 and 3 wherein the third respondent was represented by A.Mohamad Ismail. 2. In the memo, the revision petitioner has stated that the third respondent viz., Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League cannot be represented by A.Mohamed Ismail as stated in the cause title and Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League can be represented by its General Secretary viz., K.A.M.Muhammed Abubacker and he is the authorised person to represent the Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League and therefore, the vakalat filed by the revision petitioner representing the second defendant in the suit may be received. 3. That memo was rejected by the court below stating that if A.Mohammed Ismail is not the Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League, then the revision petitioner has to file objections to delete the name of Mohammed Ismail and implead his name and thereafter only he can file vakalat. This order is challenged in this revision. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.M.Sundar that the court below, without properly appreciating the provisions of Order I Rule 10 and Order III Rule 1, erred in rejecting the memo and it is not the case of the revision petitioner that a wrong person has been impleaded as second defendant and it is the specific case that the second defendant can be represented only by a duly authorised Secretary and in the plaint, it has been wrongly stated that the second defendant is represented by one A.Mohamed Ismail and he is not the competent person and the second defendant can be represented only by the General Secretary K.A.M.Muhammed Abubacker and the address for service given by the second defendant was also incorrect and in collusion with the second defendant, the suit was filed by the first respondent herein and only for that purpose, the memo was filed to rectify the mistake and instead of issuing notice and conducting enquiry about the competency of the person representing the second defendant, the court below erred in rejecting the memo. He further submitted that an advocate is entitled to file a memo and he is authorised to file a memo and that has been upheld by this court in MANGAYARKARASI v. SUSEELA AND 4 OTHERS (2000-3-LW 896). 5. On the other hand, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, Mr.C.Dharmaraj, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.Umashankar, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the present revision is not maintainable and the court below rightly rejected the memo and if at all the revision petitioner was aggrieved, he ought to have filed an application to implead himself as the second defendant. The learned counsel for the third defendant submitted that the revision petitioner is not the authorised person to represent Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League and Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League is properly represented by A.Mohammed Ismail and it has got its office only in the address given in the cause title and K.A.M.Muhammed Abubacker cannot represent Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League and therefore, it was rightly rejected by the court below. 6. Heard both the counsel. In this case, the dispute is who can represent Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League. According to the revision petitioner, he alone can represent the second defendant and A.Mohammed Ismail is not competent to represent the same. According to me, the provisions of Order I Rule 10 will not be applicable to this case as there is no question of impleading a party to the suit. Already Tamil Nadu State Indian Union Muslim League was made as a party viz., the second defendant and the dispute is who is to represent the same. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the second defendant can be represented only by K.A.M.Muhammed Abubacker and the registered office of the second defendant is not the address given in the plaint and for that purpose, he filed the memo seeking permission of the court to file vakalat. 7. As there is no question of impleading any party, there is no need to file an application under Order I rule 10. Further, a party can be represented by the duly authorised person and in this case, a dispute has arisen about the authorised person who can represent the second defendant. 7. As there is no question of impleading any party, there is no need to file an application under Order I rule 10. Further, a party can be represented by the duly authorised person and in this case, a dispute has arisen about the authorised person who can represent the second defendant. In such circumstances, the court below ought to have issued notice on the memo filed by the revision petitioner and after allowing the parties to lead evidence, passed order about the competency of the person to represent the second defendant. 8. Hence, the order of the court below is set aside and the revision is allowed. The court below is directed to dispose of the memo filed by the revision petitioner after giving full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The entire exercise shall be completed by the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.