MOHAN SINGH @ CHARAN SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is against the order of the Appellate Court reversing the decision of the trial Court's order by which the latter had dismissed the application for restoration of the suit. The suit had been filed for declaration in respect of immovable property in the year 2000 through one Mohinder Singh Dhillon as an alleged Power of Attorney. The defendant had taken an objection that there was no valid power at all and the institution of the suit was bad. When the trial of the suit had come up in the year 2006 the plaintiffs did not produce the Power of Attorney and that resulted in the suit to be dismissed for default. The application for restoration was filed which without accompanying the Power of Attorney even at that time when the petition was dismissed. In the appeal filed by the appellants through the alleged Power of Attorney the document of Power of Attorney was filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27. The objection taken to the application was that even the document produced as additional evidence was a document of the year 2006 which only showed that there had been no Power of Attorney at the time when the suit was instituted. The Appellate Court has allowed the application for reception of additional evidence and passed an order allowing the appeal and restoring the suit on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/ -.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues vehemently that the institution of the suit itself was not proper and that all the plaintiffs were residents abroad and fraudulent suit had been instituted by Mohinder Singh Dhillon by using the names of the plaintiffs without any authority. The additional document produced before the Court itself was not of the year 2000 when the suit was instituted but a document drawn subsequently after the order was passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for restoration. The objection of the learned counsel is that the Power of Attorney ought not to have been received, for, it had not been executed on the date of suit.

(3.) RESERVING to the petitioner the above said liberty I make no intervention in the order of the Appellate Court directing the restoration of suit and for trial on merits.