GURINDER SINGH Vs. SWARAN KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has arisen out of the order dated 20.12.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Hoshiarpur, and the order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur. The crucial questions involved in the case for determination are as under:-

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is the resident of village Pur Hiran, District Hoshiarpur, now residing at 3803, Cross Wind Way, Bakers Field, C.A. 93313, U.S.A. He and his two brothers had appointed Hardial Singh as their attorney for a limited period i.e. with effect from 11.12.1998 to 11.12.1999 and this power of attorney was neither renewed nor fresh power of attorney was issued in his favour thereafter. On the strength of said power of attorney for a limited period, Hardial Singh had filed a civil suit at Hosiarpur on 6.4.1999, which continued for nine years. At the time of evidence, one of the plaintiffs, namely Gurbax Singh, appeared in the witness box. However, at the fag end of the case, when it was fixed for rebuttal and arguments, Hardial Singh connived with defendants No. 1 to 5 and for extraneous reasons got the suit dismissed as compromised, vide order dated 20.12.2008. All this was done by Hardial Singh, after leaving his original counsel Shri A.K. Soni, Advocate, and by engaging another counsel; namely, Shri Bhagwant Kishore Gupta, Advocate. He did not disclose that Gurbax Singh had already died and he was power of attorney for a limited period. The parties moved the application and got the case referred to the Lok Adalat, where Hardial Singh as well as the respondents compromised the matter, vide Ex. C-1. Besides, respondent-Hardial Singh also made a statement regarding the said compromise, on the basis of which the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, vide order dated 20.12.2008 dismissed the suit. Relevant extract of the order reads as under:-

(3.) On coming to know that Hardial Singh without any valid power of attorney had entered into the compromise to benefit himself and had caused loss to the petitioner, the petitioner moved an application for recalling of the order, which was dismissed in terms of the compromise by the Lok Adalat.