AMIT ROY Vs. JYOTHENDRA SINHJI VIKRAMSINHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner-defendant has called into question the order dated 28-6-2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-14) on I.A. No. 47 in O.S. No. 1963 of 2002. In the suit for recovery of possession and damages filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 47 invoking Sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Sec. 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the said Act' for short) for rejecting the general power of attorney dated 3-6-2.015. The Trial Court dismissed it imposing the cost of Rs. 10,000/.

(2.) Sri Pradeep Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the that said general power of attorney document is not authenticated and executed as per Sec. 85 of the said Act. He read out the provisions contained in Sec. 85 of the said Act. It is extracted herein below:

(3.) The general power of attorney document (Annexure-K) shows that it was executed before G.H. Jadeja, Notary, Government of Gujarat. He submits that as per the Certificate of Practise (Annexure-N) issued by the Government of Gujarat, he can perform his notarial acts throughout Kotdasangani Taluka of Rajkot District. The general power of attorney document (Annexure-K) shows that it was executed at Gondal. Gondal is not a part of Kotdasangani Taluk and therefore the said Notary Public, G.H. Jadeja does not have the power to notarise the documents executed at the said place, namely, Gondal. For want of jurisdiction, it cannot be held the that said documents is executed before the Notary Public.