CR No.5583 of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Surinder Kumar Manjania …. Petitioner Versus Amit Arora …. Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the order dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the petitioner attorney for the defendants in the suit to summon the defendants. It may be useful to briefly notice the facts of the case. The respondent herein, filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana, against three defendants, namely, Sansar Chand, Rajinder Kumar and Baldev Kumar. Even these defendants were not sued through any attorney. However, it seems that subsequently the defendants were served through the present petitioner Surinder Kumar Manjania in his capacity as an attorney for defendant Nos.1 and 3. Surinder CR No.5583 of 2006 -2- Kumar on being summoned, appeared in the Court and filed application for summoning of defendant Nos.1 and 3 pleading that he is the attorney only on behalf of defendant No.1 for lease and sale of the land and he does not hold any attorney on behalf of defendant No.3. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 is residing in UK and defendant No.3 is residing in Canada, the applicant so called attorney has no right or instructions to defend them in the suit. After obtaining objections from the respondents, the Civil Judge proceeded to decide the application for summoning of the defendants holding that defendant No.2 has already filed his written statement and that Shri K.N.Sethi, Advocate, has already appeared on behalf of defendant No.1. It is further held that defendant No.3 has not been served so far. The trial Court, however, did not decide about the status of attorney or his right to defend the suit on behalf of the defendants. The impugned order in so far refusal to summon defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, cannot be faulted with. Both the defendants having appeared through their advocates and since defendant No.3 was also not served, the trial Court has rightly observed that he is yet to be served. The trial Court, however, was required to decide the right of the attorney to defend the defendants in the suit which has not been decided vide the impugned order. The petitioner has placed CR No.5583 of 2006 -3- on record the Power of Attorney to show that the Attorney given to him by Sansar Chand is only in respect to the lease and sale of the land at Jagraon. From the copy of the Power of Attorney, it appears that it is specific Power of Attorney for the purpose of leasing and sale of the land. Apparently, the petitioner has no authority on behalf of defendants to defend any one of them in a suit or even to represent or sign the pleadings on their behalf. Under the given circumstances, this petition is partially allowed. The learned Trial Court may proceed with the suit. However, the petitioner cannot be compelled to act as an attorney of the defendants in the absence of any valid Power of Attorney with him. The trial Court will determine this aspect of the matter if insisted upon by any of the parties on the basis of record before it or allowing the parties to lead evidence if so required. 13.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE