G M URUJ Vs. ANWAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff. In the suit for damages one Sri Mir Simjuddin sought to file a certified copy of the document under which he was said to have been appointed as the lawful General Power of Attorney by the defendant in the suit. He filed an application Under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice requesting permission of the Court to act, conduct and defend the defendant in the suit. THE Court below allowed the application. Questioning the same this revision petition is filed.

(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the identity of the person who is said to have executed the said document was in doubt, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application. In support of his contention he has taken me through an order of this Court passed in C.R.P. No.48/96. Learned Counsel for the respondent however submits that there was a presumption under law when once a notarised power of attorney is produced it is presumed to be true and unless the said presumption is rebutted by adducing necessary evidence the Court has to presume that the document was true and hence the application was rightly allowed. Admittedly the certified copy of the General Power of Attorney was properly notarised. Under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice if a party appears by any agent other than an Advocate, he should file before the Court the power of attorney authorising him to act with authenticated document together with an affidavit that the said authority was still subsisting. Thereupon the Judge will permit the person to act on behalf of the party. The Court below found that the necessary affidavit has been filed and that the G.P.A. was property notarised. IT is true that in the order passed in C.R.P.No.48/96 this Court has categorically observed that the identity of a person who executed the General Power of Attorney if put in issue will be gone into by the Rent Controller. By the said observation it cannot be said that the Court doubted the General Power of Attorney issued by the defendant. But unfortunately in this case though the petitioner has filed lengthy counter-affidavit he has not mentioned anywhere categorically that the said G.P.A. was bogus or fabricated. The averments in the said counter particularly goes to show that the defendant was absconding and has been avoiding summons issued by the Court below. Hence the G.P.A. holder should not be permitted to act and appear on his behalf. IT is argued before this Court that the document itself was not executed by the defendant and the document is a created one. IT is necessary to consider this aspect and examine the same with reference to the evidence that may be adduced by the petitioner before the Court below. In these circumstances the C.R.P. has to be allowed. In the result the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to consider the evidence if adduced by the petitioner with regard to the identity of the person who has executed the G.P.A. or the validity of the G.P.A. for any other reason and pass appropriate orders. The civil revision-petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs.