In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6495 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 25, 2009 Balbinder Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. Jaspal Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No.542 of 31.8.1998 titled Jaspal Singh vs. Balbinder Singh and others, whereby the application dated 15.3.2007 was allowed and Gurcharan Singh Sandhu alleged attorney of Jaspal Singh was allowed to continue the suit on behalf of Jaspal Singh. The facts in the background of the case are that Jaspal Singh- plaintiff who is a permanent resident of England had filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 24.11.1986 executed by his father Joginder Singh in favour of his son Balbinder Singh and wife Kulwinder Kaur respectively. The suit was filed by Lakhbir Singh, power of attorney executed on 13.7.1998 (Annexure P28). Thereafter, on account of the compromise, Jaspal Singh had executed another power of attorney dated 12.2.2002 (Annexure P29) and also dated 19.2.2002 for acting on his behalf. The suit was still pending and Lakhbir Singh, on 16.2.2007, made a statement in the Court to the effect that on account of the compromise between the parties, he did not want to pursue the case. However, Gurcharan Singh Sandhu, allegedly a property dealer, moved an application on 15.3.2007, on the basis of the power of attorney dated 14.3.2007 executed by Jaspal Singh for allowing him to continue with the suit stating that Jaspal Singh never wanted to suffer the statement thereby withdraw the suit. The power of attorney in his favour has already been cancelled. The plaintiff never compromised the matter pertaining to the property in dispute, Civil Revision No. 6495 of 2007 -2- *** therefore, he may be allowed to continue with the suit through Gurcharan Singh his special power of attorney. It would also be essential to mention that the property in dispute is a house. On the strength of power of attorney of Jaspal Singh in favour of his father Joginder Singh, on 7.6.1976 the father had transferred the same in the name of Balbinder Singh and Kulwinder Kaur, which was challenged. Balbinder Singh and Kulwinder Kaur are also living abroad. The power of attorney executed by Jaspal Singh on 13.7.1998 had given absolute power to Lakhbir Singh that he could concede or compromise the suit filed by him. Similarly, power of attorney dated 12.2.2002 executed in his favour also reveals that Lakhbir Singh was duly authorised to make any statement with regard to compromise or concede the suit filed against him (Jaspal Sisngh) by Balbinder Singh. The power of attorney dated 19.2.2002 also contains a clause that Lakhbir Singh could compromise any matter pending in any court of law. On the basis of the aforesaid power of attorneys Lakhbir Singh made a statement in the court on 28.2.2007 for dismissal of the suit on the basis of the compromise. It has been submitted by Jaspal Singh plaintiff now through Gurcharan Singh that he never intended to compromise the matter, therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the statement and continue with the proceedings. Upon notice, the defendants-respondents (herein referred as defendants No.1 to 3) filed the reply taking preliminary objections that after a long drawn litigation between the parties, they had entered into a compromise through which all the disputes pending between the parties were settled and it was decided that the entire litigation shall be withdrawn. As such, Jaspal Singh was relieved from the litigation by way of suits filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in which he was defendant No.4. In pursuance of the said compromise, the litigation against him (Jaspal Singh) was withdrawn but now he has cleverly chosen to file the present application. It has been further averred that Lakhbir Singh being the attorney of Jaspal Singh has already suffered a statement on 28.2.2007 with regard to withdrawal of the suit for all intents and purposes and were forwarded to the Lok Adalat which was going to be held on 17.3.2007. Civil Revision No. 6495 of 2007 -3- *** Thus, now the plaintiff cannot withdraw the said statement. At the time of making statement by Lakhbir Singh on 28.2.2007, power of attorney executed by Jaspal Singh in favour of Lakhbir Singh on 12.2.2007 was in force and it was never cancelled, if cancelled, it was never notified to him. The same power of attorney was used by Lakhbir Singh in other matters including Civil Suit No. 1 of 3.1.2002 while compromising the matter with respondent No.1 and 2, who had filed the suit in which even the plaintiff Jaspal Singh was arrayed as defendant No.4. Now the plaintiff cannot be allowed to back-out from the said terms and conditions. Ultimately, they prayed for dismissal of the application. However, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana while holding that it was the sweet will of the plaintiff to continue or withdraw the suit and he could withdraw his statement before the suit is dismissed or disposed of in any manner. This order has been assailed by way of the present revision petition. The present case is surrounded by peculiar circumstances, Jaspal Singh plaintiff who never came to file the suit, appeared in the suit at any time and made any statement, executed three power of attorneys in favour of Lakbir Singh (Annexure P28 to P30) authorising him to file the suit on his behalf and to contest the suit filed against him. He was duly authorised power of attorney on 28.2.2002, when he made the statement in the present suit for withdrawal of the same on the basis of the compromise. Pursuant to the statement in the said suit, the defendants now petitioners also made statement on the same day for withdrawal of the suit no.314 of 19.11.2002 Balbinder Singh vs. Avtar Singh and Civil Suit No.1 of 3.1.2002 Balbinder Singh vs. Avtar Singh. Consequently, both the suits were accordingly dismissed on the statement made by Balbinder Singh. Though the plaintiff never came to India to move an application for making statement ratify or challenge the statement made by Lakhbir Singh, has allegedly appointed Gurcharan Singh Sandhu as his power of attorney, pursuant to which the latter moved an application to continue with the suit. Notwithstanding the fact the plaintiff Jaspal Singh could withdraw his previous statement but he has not turned up to appear and make statement before the trial court to condemn, criticise or withdraw the statement duly Civil Revision No. 6495 of 2007 -4- *** made by his power of attorney Lakhbir Singh and record his intention to continue with the suit. It may further be observed that there is no challenge to the three power of attorneys executed in favour of Lakhbir Singh by Jaspal Singh. No cancellation deed has been brought on record in order to show that any of the said power of attorneys executed by Jaspal Singh were cancelled and he was notified or that Jaspal Singh had liquidated the acts done by Lakhbir Singh at any time. From the circumstances prevailing over the case, it transpires that it was a family dispute between the father and sons. The plaintiff Jaspal Singh and the defendant Balbinder Singh are residing abroad and were in litigation through their power of attorneys. They appear to have settled the dispute in the variety of litigation pending in civil as well as criminal courts at Ludhiana. Howsoever, after the compromise was effected; statements were recorded; and when the orders were likely to be passed by the Lok Adalat in the only suit filed by Jaspal Singh, on the basis of the compromise so made, the alleged power of attorney Gurcharan Singh Sandhu figured. In order to remove the confusion whether Jaspal Singh had actually cancelled the power of attorney dated 16.2.2007 and had appointed Gurcharan Singh Sandhu as his new power of attorney, whether Jaspal Singh actually wanted to resile from the compromise and withdraw the statement made by Lakhbir Singh his attorney; and whether he actually wanted to continue with the suit, this court, on 18.5.2009 passed the following order :- “Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to place on record the alleged cancellation deed dated 16.2.2007, allegedly executed by Jaspal Singh and second power of attorney executed by Jaspal Singh in favour of Gurcharan Singh. It may further be observed that circumstances in which the earlier power of attorney has been cancelled and new power of attorney was executed, has created confusion as to these power of attorneys as to “whether earlier power of attorney was actually cancelled and the second power of attorney was executed in favour of Gurcharan Singh”, Civil Revision No. 6495 of 2007 -5- *** therefore, Jaspal Singh is directed to appear in the court to clear the confusion. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1 did not comply with the orders and refused to produce Jaspal Singh in the court, therefore, this court vide order dated 7.7.2009 was constrained to summon Jaspal Singh through court to remove the confusion. Jaspal Singh was duly served but again he has not put in appearance despite repeated asking by this court, Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate is not inclined to produce him in the court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has tried to make half hearted efforts to excuse his presence on the basis of the medical certificate dated 28.8.2009, but the same does not show if Jaspal Singh was unable to attend the court. Be that it may, Jaspal Singh could come to the court to liquidate or withdraw the statement made by his attorney Lakhbir Singh. But, he could not ratify or cancel the acts done by his previous power of attorney by way of alleged special power of attorney dated 14.3.2007 allegedly executed by him in favour of Gurcharan Singh Sandhu. I have much reservations to approve this power of attorney, but without commenting over the same, it may be observed that that special power of attorney dated 14.3.2007 is shrouded by suspicion. Any way, it does not contain any clause referring : (i) the attorney could liquidate, cancel or challenge any act done by his previous attorney Lakhbir Singh; (ii) he could make the statement to withdraw the earlier statement made by Lakhbir Singh for withdrawal of the suit on the basis of the compromise. The power of attorney also does not refer to any such fact if Jaspal Singh had not entered into any compromise with the petitioners and he is not bound by any statement made regarding compromise by Lakhbir Singh. As such, the statement made by Lakhbir Singh would remain binding upon Jaspal Singh till it is withdrawn by him and the attorney had no right, on the basis of alleged special power of attorney to contest the suit and to withdraw the acts done by Lakhbir Singh prior to the execution of the power of attorney in favour of Gurcharan Singh Sandhu. While pondering over the impugned order, that appears to be merely on the basis of the fact that the attorney could withdraw the Civil Revision No. 6495 of 2007 -6- *** statement made by the previous attorney and could continue with the suit on the basis of a subsequent power of attorney but he could not do so for the reasons recorded above particularly when he did not appear in court to say so despite a specific direction issued to him, though adverse inference shall be drawn against Jaspal Singh as well as his alleged new attorney. Resultantly, this order is rendered invalid inviting interference by this court. In the wake of aforesaid discussions, I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) and direct the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. However, it is again made clear that Gurcharan Singh Sandhu is not competent under the alleged special power of attorney to repudiate or withdraw the earlier acts done by Lakhbir Singh power of attorney of the plaintiff as Jaspal Singh has created confusion with regard to execution of the different power of attorneys and has not made clear if he had compromised with the petitioners, therefore, he is given two months time to appear in person, remove the dust and would be at liberty to withdraw the statement made by his attorney. September 25, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge