NOORBANU HAJI HASAN Vs. HAVABAI HAJI HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed by the defendant- petitioner against the order of the Civil Judge, Una dated 24-6-1999 in Regular Civil Suit No 89 of 1996 below Exh 148.

(2.) It is really shocking and surprising that the members of the Bar in the Court have little care of the matters which are to be presented Not only this even they do not bother to read the papers, before same are to be presented in the Court It is a duty of the members of the Bar to present each and every paper after they themselves read it, so that there may be any chance of errors, omissions and mistakes Sometimes, very glaring mistakes are being noticed in the Memo of the revisions, appeals and applications etc This is a case where I find glaring mistake in the memo of revision application The order is dated 24-6-1999 which is impugned in this revision application is passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No 1 The application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.l for change of her power of Attorney holder and to record his statement was came to be granted under this order, but contrary to it what the petitioner states that as if this application has been filed by the petitioner and the same has been rejected Not only this, in para No 2 of the Memo of the revision application it is stated that the order was pronounced on 24-9-1999, which is factually incorrect Not only this, otherwise also from this paragraph itself, it is clear that what is stated is not correct The learned trial Court granted the stay against the impugned order up to 2-7-1999 So if we go by this fact, then it is difficult to accept that this order is pronounced on 24-9-1999 From para No 2 it is also clear that under the order the application of the plaintiff- respondent came to be allowed and what he has stated that the application of the petitioner is rejected is not correct It is expected of the Counsel for the petitioner to be very careful and sincere in her duty which she owes to the Court In future, such type of error, mistake and omission may not occur otherwise this Court ought to have take a serious view of the same It is unfortunate that for this inaction, omissions and mistakes which are being committed by the members'of the Bar one day if it repeats the poor clients are to heavily suffer.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the power of Attorney holder is examined not as a witness of the plaintiff-respondent but as a plaintiff He appeared as a plaintiff and if the statements given by him are not considered to be in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner it is not permissible for her to change the power of Attorney only for the purpose of his examination. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is always open to the plaintiff-respondent to change power of Attorney and he can proceed with the suit on her behalf but he cannot again be examined as the power of Attorney of the plaintiff-respondent where earlier power of Attorney holder has been examined and evidence has been closed Lastly, it is contended that if such a procedure has been followed, adopted and permitted by this Court there will be no end to these matters and proceedings will not attain the finality.