: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.162 OF 2010 Mashhur Ali A. Rehman through C.A. Altaf Ali Abid Ali ... Appellant V/s. Municipal Housing and Area Development Board ... Respondent Mr.R.D. Sawant for Appellant Mr.P.G. Lad for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 1, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the City Civil Court dated 5.1.2010. By this judgment, the suit has been dismissed. 2. The appellant plaintiff had filed the suit through one Altaf Ali Abid Ali who claims to be the constituted attorney of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that he was entitled to alternate premises in view of the policy of MHADA. Certain documents were placed on record in support of the plaintiff’s contention that he was entitled to allotment of premises. The trial Court framed the issue as to whether Altaf Ali was entitled to file a suit on behalf of the plaintiff. This issue has been answered in the negative. The Court has found, after perusing various documents on record : 2 : and comparing the signatures which were allegedly those of the plaintiff and the signature of the power of attorney at exhibit 11, that the signatures did not tally. The Court therefore held that there was very serious doubt as to whether the plaintiff had authorised Altaf Ali to file the suit. The Court has also taken note of the fact that the plaintiff had left Mumbai a year prior to the filing of the suit and in these circumstances dismissed the suit. 3. I have perused the evidence and I find that the trial Court has not committed any error by dismissing the suit. There is no material on record to indicate as to why the plaintiff was unable to testify before the Court. Nor is there any material on record to indicate why it was necessary for the constituted attorney to depose before the Court. In these circumstances, in my view, the finding of the trial Court that it appears that it is the constituted attorney who seems to be taking advantage of allotment made in favour of the plaintiff must be accepted. Although the allotment letter had been issued to the plaintiff, he had not paid the amount required to be deposited with MHADA within the stipulated time and therefore, the suit was dismissed. 4. It appears that the present appeal has also been filed on the basis of the same document i.e. the power of attorney on which basis the suit had been filed before the trial Court. In my view, the appeal itself is not maintainable in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court that the power of attorney seems to have been executed by a person other than the plaintiff. 5. Appeal is dismissed.