parte judgment and decree dated 7.10.2003. It was the appellant's case that although in the suit vakalatnama dated 20.7.1994 was filed on behalf of the appellant in the suit by M/s Narayanan and Narayanan, Advocates, it cannot be accepted as valid, as the appellant had not instructed the said Advocates to appear on behalf of the appellant in the suit. It was contended that the vakalatnama was signed by Mr.K.Shrinivas Rao as constituted attorney of the appellant who was never authorized by the appellant to sign vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant. The power of attorney dated 29.4.1993 of the appellant granted to Mr.K.Shrinivas Rao to sign the vakalatnama was also not valid as a there was no resolution of the board of directors authorizing grant of a power of attorney. Thus, even the affidavit-in-reply dated 20.7.1994 filed by Mr.K.Shrinivas Rao before the learned single Judge in an earlier notice of motion of the respondent/plaintiff for interim relief, was not valid. M/s Narayanan and Narayanan, Advocates could not have accepted the suit summons on behalf of the appellant. It was contended that though on the day the Court heard the matter and passed the judgment and order dated 7.10.2003, Advocate Mr.N.Raja was shown to have appeared for the appellant and who had informed the Court that he had no further instructions on behalf of the appellant, in such a situation, the Court ought not to have proceeded to pass a decree. This is a clear case that the suit summons was not served on the appellant and for that reason, the ex-parte decree ought to have been set aside.
