ANUP KUMAR DHIRSAMANT Vs. CHATURBHUJA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in W.P. (C) No. 19205 of 2011 has challenged the order dated 8.7.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul in Interim Application No. 76 of 2010 arising out of C.S. No. 250 of 2010 ignoring the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present writ application are as follows: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the court below that on execution of second general power of attorney in favour of Minakshi Rout the earlier general power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled which is an error apparent on the face of the record as the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner was irrevocable with the terms and conditions stipulated therein and as such the same is still continuing and therefore the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally. He further submitted that the parties have not stated that the said power of attorney was cancelled rather the defendant No. 1 executed another power of attorney in favour of Minakshi Rout without indicating the description of the immovable properties to identify the same by ignoring the provision of Section 21 of the Registration Act. After death of Snehalata Rout, who was a party to the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner and no fresh power of attorney executed in respect of her interest over the suit schedule land in favour of any other person. Therefore the said intervenor cannot represent Snehalata's interest over the suit property and the court below has ignored the said fact as such the impugned order is perverse and is liable to be interfered with.