SUNIL JOLLY Vs. RAGHAVENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who were respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.38653/2016 are before this Court under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sec. 114 of CPC to review the order dtd. 22/9/2016 in W.P.No.38653/2016 wherein this Court after quashing the endorsement dtd. 24/6/2016 directed first respondent to accept and register the sale deed dtd. 23/6/2016 subject to the requirement of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act being complied with.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Samartha.S, for the review petitioners and Sri.M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that the review petitioners were represented in the writ petition by one Sri.P.Hanumanthappa on the basis of General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the review petitioners. It is submitted that the review petitioners have not authorized or executed General Power of Attorney in favour of P.Hanumanthappa but he is said to have been represented before this Court. Further, learned counsel would submit that the review petitioners have instituted O.S.No.1577/2016 praying for a judgment and decree to declare the sale deed in question as well as the General Power of Attorney said to have been executed in favour of P.Hanumanthappa as null and void. It is also submitted that Crime No.539/2016 is also pending against said P.Hanumanthappa who claims that petitioners have executed General Power of Attorney in his favour. Thus, he submits that this Court could not have directed for registration of sale deed when dispute with regard to General Power of Attorney was pending. Learned counsel would further submit that since the petitioners have not authorized P.Hanumanthappa, he could not have represented the review petitioners before this Court.