Power of attorney: Role of power of attorney holder – Application for restoration, at the behest of the power of attorney holder, whose power of attorney stood cancelled – Tenability of – Is not tenable – On facts, suit by original plaintiff challenging the sale deed – Subsequently, the original plaintiff died in 2006 and his LRs brought on record – Suit dismissed by the trial court – First appeal filed by the LRs and the appellant-son of the original plaintiff, also dismissed – Thereafter in 2015, second appeal filed by VM, the power of attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the original plaintiff, prior to his death – VM was also appointed the power of attorney holder by the appellant – VM represented all the LRs of the original plaintiff including the appellant-son of the original plaintiff in the second appeal – However, office objections raised as the earlier power of attorney got expired with the death of the original plaintiff and there was no Vakalatnama signed by other LRs – Non-removal of objections – Dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court – Application seeking restoration of the second appeal and transposition of other LRs as defendants and the same was allowed – Later, cancellation of the power of attorney by the appellant by public notice – Pursuant thereto, the appellant engaged an advocate to file a pursis for the withdrawal of the second appeal which was allowed by the High Court – However, even after cancellation of the power of Attorney, VM filed an application for review of the said order and consequent restoration of the second appeal – On appeal, held: Order by the High Court restoring the second appeal, not sustainable and is quashed and set aside – Since VM was having power of attorney on behalf of the appellant, the appeal could have been filed only on his behalf – Appellant had cancelled the power of attorney issued in favour of VM by issuing a public notice – As such, VM had no authority in law to continue with the second appeal – After the transposition of the other LRs was allowed, appellant was the sole appellant – As such, in his position as dominus litis, he was very well within his right to withdraw the second appeal – After the withdrawal of the second appeal by appellant, an application for restoration, at the behest of the power of attorney holder, whose power of attorney stood cancelled, was not at all tenable.
Adverse remarks – Expunction of – Adverse remarks by the High Court – Justification of – Held: Remarks against the appellant totally unwarranted and uncalled for.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.