1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PEITION NO.7700 OF 2008 Bhimappa Ramling Sakhare & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Bharat Maganlal Mehta & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.H.R.Pandey for the petitioners. Mr.Dinear Madan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.H.V.KOde and Mr.R.A.Lokhande i/by G.S.Bhat for the respondent no.1. Mr.Ashwin R. Singh i/by R.K.Singh for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29 th July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are the applicants in the Chamber Summons No.1358 of 2004. The affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons purportedly filed by the petitioners was affirmed by one Bhimraj Dipchand Kothari claiming to be constituted attorney of the petitioners. Even the vakalatnama of the advocate who filed the Chamber Summons was signed by the alleged constituted attorney. One of the grounds on which the Chamber 2 Summons has been dismissed by the impugned order is that the original power of attorney was not produced though parties contesting the Chamber Summons had challenged the authority of the person who has filed the Chamber Summons. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the constituted attorney of the petitioners was earlier in possession of the original power of attorney but when the Chamber Summons was filed, he was possessing only a xerox copy thereof which was allegedly certified by a notary public as a true copy. He states that as of today the original power of attorney is not in possession of the said constituted attorney. 3. He submitted that if this Court is inclined to reject the petition on the ground that the constituted attorney was not possessing the power of attorney, a liberty may be granted to take out fresh Chamber Summons. 4. It is an admitted position that the said alleged constituted attorney had no right to file 3 the Chamber Summons. In fact, even the present petition could not have been filed by the said constituted attorney. It must be noted that the case of the constituted attorney is that the power of attorney is in existence but he is not possessing it. It is not his case that the original power of attorney is lost or destroyed. Therefore, the Chamber Summons itself was incompetent and the said constituted attorney has no authority even to file present writ petition on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, there is no question of granting any liberty. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)