SANJAY MISHRIMAL PUNAMIYA Vs. SHEIKHAH FADIAH SAAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals challenge a common Order of the Learned Single Judge dtd. 6/9/2021 ("the Impugned Order"). The Appellant in Appeal No.551 of 2019 is the Original Defendant No.1 ("Defendant No.1") in the Suit and also Respondent No.2 in the Appeal No.34 of 2021. Defendant No.1 claims to be in possession of Flat No. 21 as a tenant. Flat No. 21 is located on the 5th Floor in the building known as Al Sabah Court located at Marine Drive. Respondent No.2 in Appeal No. 551 of 2019 is Defendant No.2 ("Defendant No.2") in the Suit and Respondent No.3 in the connected Appeal No.34 of 2021. Defendant No.2 claims to be in possession of a room on the ground floor next to Room No.1 in the same building as a tenant. The Appellant in Appeal No.34 of 2021 is the Defendant No.3 in the Suit and Respondent No.3 in the Appeal No. 551 of 2019 ("Defendant No.3"). Defendant No.3 claims to be in possession of a room located adjacent to the terrace on the 6th floor in the same building as tenant. Respondent No.1 who is the original Plaintiff ("Plaintiff") in the Suit is the landlord of the entire Building - Al Sabah Court. Al Sabah Court belongs to the Plaintiff and the Royal Family of Kuwait of which the Plaintiff is also a member.

(2.) By the Impugned Order the Learned Single Judge has rejected Notice of Motion No.528 of 2015 and Notice of Motion No.534 of 2015. Notice of Motion No.528 of 2015 was taken out by Defendant No.1 for directions to the Plaintiff to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that Firaz El-Kurdi, the Power of Attorney holder of the Plaintiff ("Constituted Attorney"), being the person who has verified the Plaint and filed an Affidavit in Support of the Plaint, is acquainted with the facts of the case in terms of Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC 1908. Defendant No.3, the Appellant in the Appeal No.34 of 2019, challenges the Impugned Order dismissing Notice of Motion No. 534 of 2015 taken out by the said Defendant No.3 seeking dismissal of the Suit and / or rejection of the Plaint as filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 14 or under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(3.) It is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff, who claims to be one of the heirs of the deceased landlord (Shaikh Abdullah Al-Salem Al- Sabah, Late Emir of Kuwait) of Al Sabah Court Building in which the Suit Premises are situated, has filed a suit through the Constituted Attorney, Firaz El-Kurdi, who is not personally aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is then contended that despite being unaware, the Constituted Attorney has affirmed the Plaint on the basis of Power of Attorney of the Plaintiff which, on the date of verification of the Plaint i.e. on 5/12/2013 was not properly stamped as per the Maharashtra Stamp Act. It had therefore been prayed that the verification in the Plaint does not meet the requirements of Order VI Rule 15 and that the Plaintiff should satisfy the Court on the compliance of provisions of Order VI Rule 15 and/or the Plaint be dismissed on the grounds of defective verification.