FATEHSINHRAO PRATAPSINHRAO GAEKWAD Vs. SAVJIBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short and simple question has taken considerable time at the lengthy hearing of this Revision Application. The question is whether the trial court was justified in granting the plaintiffs application for joining additional defendants under 0. 1 R. 10(2) C.P.C. They are the specified authority competent authority and State Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976

(2.) The respondent no. 1 original plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No. 70 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Baroda for a declaration that the agreement and irrevocable power of attorney dt. 24/03/1977 and the affidavit-cum-declaration dt. 10/02/1978 are valid sub- sisting and binding on the defendant (the petitioner herein) and for due performance of the agreement and other directions for the said purpose and for a permanent injunction against breach of the said contract and irrevocable power of attorney and from interfering and not obstructing the opponent-plaintiff from acting thereunder and representing before the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 and for restraining the defendant from making any application for revocation or cancellation of the scheme under the Act and that the defendant be ordered and decreed by mandatory order to cancer the letter written by him to the competent authority or any other authority or authorities intimating to them about the cancellation or revocation and termination of the said agreement and or the irrevocable power of attorney.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had appointed the plaintiff as his constituted attorney by an irrevocable power of attorney and entered into the agreement in respect of the property known as Laxmi Vilas Palace Estate situated in the city of Baroda admeasuring about 707 Acres and in respect of that land a scheme for construction of dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker section of the society as envisaged under sec. 21(1) of the said Act was to be made and implemented and for that purpose the parties bad entered into the suit agreement and the defendant No. 1 had appointed the plaintiff as his constituted attorney under the irrevocable power of attorney and in pursuance of that authority the plaintiff had got the scheme sanctioned by specified authority.