GANGASHARAN PACHAURI THROUGH LRS Vs. VASUDEV PRASAD PACHAURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved by the order dtd. 17/2/2025 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 199-A of 2019 by the 6th Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morena, whereby the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 3 Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the plaintiff's son to proceed in the suit on the basis of a Power of Attorney dtd. 27/1/2025. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the subsequent order dtd. 24/2/2025, whereby their application for recalling/reviewing the order dtd. 17/2/2025 was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff, Vasudev Prasad Pachauri, filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No. 525, area 0.014 hectare, claiming title and possession by way of succession from his ancestors. Adjoining to the said land is land bearing Survey No. 526 belonging to defendant Gangasharan Pachauri. The plaintiff further alleged that a portion of land admeasuring 96 20 feet (1120 sq. ft.), forming part of Survey No. 525, belongs to him and that the defendants were attempting to sell the said portion despite having no right or title over it. The defendants filed their written statement denying the claims and asserted that defendant Gangasharan Pachauri is the owner and in possession of land bearing Survey No. 526. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had earlier sold a portion of land admeasuring 20 65 feet situated to the south of the defendants' land vide registered sale deed dtd. 9/10/1989. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application on 13/2/2025 under Order 3 Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, stating that due to old age and ill health, he had executed a General Power of Attorney dtd. 27/1/2025 in favour of his son, Brajesh Pachauri, and sought permission for him to proceed with the suit in his place. The defendants filed a reply opposing the said application. However, the Trial Court, vide order dtd. 17/2/2025, allowed the application and also directed amendment of the cause title showing "Plaintiff Vasudev through Power of Attorney Brajesh Pachauri". The defendants thereafter filed an application under Sec. 151 CPC seeking recall of the said order, which was rejected vide order dtd. 24/2/2025. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner filed this petition on the ground that the impugned orders dtd. 17/2/2025 and 24/2/2025 are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the Trial Court committed a grave error of law in allowing the application under Order 3 Rule 1 CPC and in amending the cause title by virtually impleading the Power of Attorney holder as a party to the suit. It is a settled principle of law that a Power of Attorney holder may conduct proceedings on behalf of the principal but cannot be substituted or added as a plaintiff in a pending suit. It is further submitted that a Power of Attorney holder can depose only with respect to acts done by him or facts within his personal knowledge, and cannot step into the shoes of the principal for the purpose of leading evidence. Therefore, the impugned orders are contrary to settled legal principles and deserve to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.