Civil Revision No. 321 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 321 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.07.2010 Balwinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Paramjit Kaur ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for deleting her name as attorney of Chain Singh, stands rejected. The respondent, wife of Chain Singh, filed a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for granting maintenance to her. In view of the fact that the petitioner was given special power of attorney by Chain Singh, husband of the respondent, to represent him in a case, respondent-wife sued Chain Singh through the petitioner by claiming her to be the attorney. The respondent-wife also moved an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of immovable property belonging to Chain Singh, who is stated to be proclaimed Civil Revision No. 321 of 2010 -2- offender, and has not chosen to appear in the case so far. It was further the case of the respondent-wife that the petitioner has not disclosed the whereabouts of Chain Singh, as his address is not available with her. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, dismissed the application, because special power of attorney was executed in her favour to contest one case. The learned Court invoked the provisions of Order 5 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to hold that Chain Singh could be represented through the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, by referring to the special power of attorney, showing that the petitioner has been given right to appear on his behalf in the case titled as Paramjit Kaur Vs. Lakha Singh alias Lakhwinder Singh etc., which is pending in the Court of Sh. Vivek Nasir, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, it is well settled law that power of attorney has to be strictly construed. Therefore, it would not be possible for the petitioner to represent Chain Singh, for want of authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays as the petitioner has no interest, in the petition filed by respondent-wife against her husband and has not been authorised by Chain Singh, therefore, she cannot appear on his behalf, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that as it is not possible for the respondent to serve Chain Singh for want of address, and further that the petitioner is dealing with the property of Chain Singh, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly Civil Revision No. 321 of 2010 -3- invoked the provisions of Order 5 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the power of attorney on record, shows that petitioner does not hold, general power of attorney, on behalf of Chain Singh, therefore, he could not be impleaded through her. I also find that the learned trial Court committed an error in invoking the provisions of Order 5 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sue Chain Singh through the petitioner, as Order 5 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure only deals with the suit relating to the damages or compensation arising out of the immovable property. It is only in the case that the party managing the immovable property, can be said to be an agent, and not in other cases, as Order 5 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with special cases qua immovable property. For the reasons stated, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the name of the petitioner is ordered to be deleted as attorney of Chain Singh. Apprehensions of the respondent-wife that the petitioner will oppose the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by her for attachment of the property to secure her compensation, which is likely to be passed in her favour, is totally mis- conceived, because on deletion of the name of the petitioner, on her request, she will not be entitled to oppose any application, filed by respondent-wife. The application filed have to be treated independently. The learned Court would be at liberty to attach the property of Chain Civil Revision No. 321 of 2010 -4- Singh in the interest of justice by passing an ex parte order of attachment of the property by accepting application moved under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the respondent (Chain Singh) is not available nor his address is with the respondent-wife. The Court would further be entitled to proceed ex parte against Chain Singh in accordance with law. Subject to liberty granted to respondent-wife, referred to above, this revision petition is allowed. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 21, 2010 R.S.