(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order for quashing the order dated 25.02.2004 whereby the petitioner's prayer for calling of the documents pertaining to the Registered Power of Attorney purportedly executed by one Smt. Rukmani Devi in favour of her husband Babu Mata Bhikh Ram and on the basis of which, the attorney holder had purportedly executed the sale deed in favour of the present petitioner's vendor, has been rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would want to explain that the claim of the petitioner is based entirely on the power of attorney executed by Smt. Rukmani Devi and the authority vested in the attorney holder. The respondent / plaintiff had in his turn produced a power of attorney claimed to have been executed by the same lady in favour of her husband, but to the petitioner's information, the document is totally different from the one relied upon by the petitioner and not exactly the same document since the one produced by the plaintiff is written in the vernacular and the one relied upon by the petitioner / defendant was recorded in the English language. Learned counsel adds further that since the document is essential for the petitioner to prove his case, it is necessary for proper appreciation of the controversy raised in the dispute between the parties in the suit before the court below to call for the said document from the Registry Office. Learned counsel adds further that the original power of attorney on the basis of which the petitioner relies in support of his case, is not in his possession. Rather, the same is in possession of the respondent / plaintiff.