IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2039 of 2006 DILIP KUMAR JHA SON OF LATE MAHANAND JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARHARA, P.S. RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL. Versus 1. CHANDAR NATH JHA SON OF LATE VIDYANATH JHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BARA OJHA JI BHAWAN, DARI PAWAN HAWA MAHAL ROAD, JAIPUR ( RAJASTHAN) 2. SHANTI NATH JHA, SON OF LATE VIDYANATH JHA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 2503, CHALLENGER TOWER-2, THAKUR VILLAGE, KADIWALI ( EAST) MUMBAI. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate. 2/ 07-08-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2006 passed in Title Suit No. 36 of 2006 whereby the plaintiff’s petition, for declaration that the Vakalatnama filed by the Power of Attorney holder is without any authority as the same was not authorised by the person concerned, has been rejected by the court below . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the power of attorney it is not revealed that the defendant has authorized power of attorney holder to appoint pleader. Hence, the Vakalatnama filed was without any authority. The court below has considered the rival submissions and has held that the power of attorney holder has been authorized to perform every act in Title Suit No.36 of 2006 which obviously includes the appointment of pleader. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As a result the civil revision is dismissed. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J ) BTiwary/