HARISH KAWA Vs. P T MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgement and order of a learned Single Judge delivered on 18th January 1996 by which the chamber summons taken out by first respondent -original plaintiff/ decree holder has been made absolute. This is one more instance proving that execution of a decree for possession is an uphill task. Even after Seventeen (17) years, the decree holder is unsuccessful in getting the fruits of the same.

(2.) When this appeal reached hearing on 13th September 2005, at the request of the Advocate appearing for first respondent, we passed an order discharging M/s. Thakore Jariwala and Associates as Advocates for respondent No. 1. The order was passed because the learned Advocate informed us that the first respondent who was present along with his son, desires that his son in whose favour power of attorney was duly executed by him should argue the matter. The son of first respondent Mr. Vijay Mehta handed over to us a copy of the power of attorney executed by the first respondent. We compared it with the original of the same.

(3.) On perusal of the said power of attorney, we were of the view that to avoid any complication, first respondent should file an affidavit not only recording the fact noted above but also his no objection to the matter being argued by his son. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the first respondent in which he has stated that on account of his advanced age and problem of hearing, he desires that the matter be argued by his son Mr. Vijay Mehta and he would assist him. He has undertaken that he would stand by all submissions and arguments placed by his son and he confirms the same.