RAJESH SINGH Vs. HARDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 12.1.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, allowing an application of defendant-respondents No. 1 to 4 wherein prayer was made for filing of written statement and serious doubts were expressed about the genuineness of power of attorney relied by the defendant-respondent No. 5. His right to file written statement has also been challenged.

(2.) THE petitioners have filed a Civil Suit No. 338 of 2002 on 25.10.2001/12.6.2002. They have claimed possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.12.1999 alleged to be entered into by defendant-respondent No. 5 on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendant-respondents No. 1 to 4 in his capacity as their General Power of Attorney. The suit was contested by defendant-respondent No. 5 alone by allegedly filing written statement on his own behalf as well as on behalf of defendant-respondents No. 1 to 4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant- respondents No. 1 to 4 filed an application with a prayer that they should be allowed to file their written statement alleging that they were never served personally and the report on summons with regard to service on them has been procured by plaintiff-petitioners in collusion with defendent-respondent No. 5. It is further alleged that defendant-respondent No. 5 posing himself to be authorised by defendant-respondents No. 1 to 4 had manipulated service of summons, which in fact he was not authorised It was further alleged that defendant-respondents No. 1 to 4 never authorised defendant-respondent No. 5 to enter into any agreement with the plaintiff-petitioners for selling their land. Therefore, it is claimed that after they acquired knowledge of the pendency of the suit on 17.4.2002, they are entitled to defend the suit independently.

(3.) MR . R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has argued that there is patent illegally committed by the Civil Judge because defendant-respondent No. 5 has acted on the basis of the registered Power of Attorney No. 98/4 dated 30.11.1994. According to the learned counsel, on the basis of the same Power of Attorney, defendant-respondent No. 5 had executed six sale deeds in March/April 1995 and no objection was raised. It has been further argued that despite the specific objection pleaded in the reply to the application filed by defendant-respondents No. 1 to 4, the Civil Judge has brushed aside the aforesaid mentioned plea of the plaintiff-petitioners resulting into passing of the impugned order.