IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2167 of 2007 (M/S) [ 1. Dharmarth Trust, Jammu & Kashmir through Chairman Trustee, Dr. Karan Singh 2. Dr. Karan Singh Dharmarth Trust Jammu & Kashmir Through Power of Attorney Holder Neeta Kumari D/o Sri Vaishnav Das R/o Upper Road, Haridwar, Tehsil & Distt. Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar, District Haridwar. 2. Swarn Kanta Ahuja W/o late Sri Swaraj Ahuja R/o Ranvir Bhawan, Opp. Rishikul College, Devpura, District Haridwar. ...………… Respondents Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate present for the respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought setting aside of order dated 02.08.2007, passed by the trial court [Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar], in S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 2 2004, whereby Dr. Karan Singh, who is Chairman Trustee of the Jammu & Kashmir Dharmarth Trust (plaintiff), has been directed to appear in person. It appears that Dharmarth Trust, Jammu & Kashmir filed S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 2004 against the tenant (present respondent No. 2) for her eviction from the Trust property at Haridwar. The plaintiff was contesting through Mr. Sanjay Dahiya S/o Hari Singh, R/o 168, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi, the Power of Attorney holder of Dr. Karan Singh, the Chairman Trustee of the Dharmarth Trust, Jammu & Kashmir. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners (plaintiff) submitted that in an attempt to delay the proceedings of eviction the defendant moved an application 72-C/2 to summon Dr. Karan Singh in court. It is further contended that the trial court has erred in law in summoning Dr. Karan Singh to appear in person. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No. 2 it is argued that there were two Power of Attorney executed by Chairman, Dharmarth Trust, Jammu & Kashmir. One was executed on 05.03.2007 in favour of Sanjay Dahiya and another was executed in favour of Neeta Kumari, and as such, the trial court has committed no error of law in summoning Dr. Karan Singh in the suit. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that there is no bar in law as to execution of more than one 3 Power of Attorney by a person. What the plaintiff had to show was that the suit was filed by the person having a Power of Attorney in his favour. That being so, infact, the tenant (respondent No. 2) who was defendant before the trial court, appears to have moved the Application 72-C/2 only to delay the eviction proceedings against her, initiated by instituting S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 2004. 5) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.08.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar, in S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 2004, is hereby quashed. The Application 72-C/2 stands rejected. It is further observed that the trial court shall proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible. (Urgency Application No. 2057 of 2009 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 21, 2009. H. Negi