IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.478 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2010 Suresh Kumari ......Appellant(s) Versus Darshan Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.1386-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 121 days in refiling this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.478 of 2010 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that General Power of Attorney dated 16.1.1998, 7.2.2000 and 17.2.2001 alleged to have been executed by Jasbir Singh Gill son of Nasib Singh, resident of H. No.1953, Sector 43-D, Chandigarh in favour of respondent No.1, in respect of House No.106, Phase-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Distt Ropar, was forged and fabricated and the sale deed dated 11.2.2003 executed on the basis of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 was illegal and was liable to be set aside has been dismissed. Admittedly, the appellant was inducted as tenant into the suit property i.e House No.106, Phase-2, SAS Nagar Mohali District Ropar, by respondent No.1 on the basis of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney in his favour and which is under challenge in this suit. RSA No.478 of 2010(O&M) -2- The Courts below recorded a finding of fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable in the present form and was absolutely frivolous litigation and she had abused the process of law by filing this suit. It is pertinent to mention that this appeal has been filed through Sh. Jasdeep Singh Gill, and Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocates, who were also representing the appellant in connected RSA No.3768 of 2009 which is also fixed for today. Sh. J.S. Gill, Advocate, is present in Court and has pleaded no instructions. Sh. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate is also not present. At this stage, Sh. J.S. Bains, Advocate has submitted that he be allowed to represent the appellant and has submitted his memo of appearance. Mr. Bains is unable to produce the vakalatnama in his favour to represent the appellant with no objection from the learned counsel through whom the instant appeal was filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to allow Sh. J.S. Bains, Advocate to represent the appellant in this appeal. Since the appellant is not represented, this Court has no alternative but to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution. Dismissed for non-prosecution. February 4, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE