Civil Revision No. 3656 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3656 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Amarjit Singh Vierk .....Petitioner Versus Harpreet Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Shri ADS Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby objection to the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witness by Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate, on the basis of power of attorney executed by the defendants, was found to be untenable. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.10.2005 in respect of the property C- 140, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali. The said suit led to an ex- parte decree on 12.2.2007. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for setting aside of the said ex-parte decree, inter-alia, on the ground that they were never served in the suit either through Registered A.D. Post or through the process of Court at their known address at Mohali or at United Kingdom. When the plaintiff was sought to be cross-examined by Shri Vinod Kumar, Advocate, an Civil Revision No. 3656 of 2010 [2] objection was raised that the power of attorney issued in favour of Shri Vinod Kumar is not embossed in terms of the Government of Punjab Instructions dated 14.9.2001. Therefore, Shri Vinod Kumar, cannot represent the defendants and consequently, cross-examine the plaintiff. The said objection was declined by the trial Court vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. The learned trial Court has found that the Vakalatnama is not a document which falls within the Notiication dated 14.9.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the defendants are residents of United Kingdom and have signed the Vakalatnama in United Kingdom and therefore, it is the document, which requires to be embossed in terms of the notification dated 14.9.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that since the defendants are Non Resident Indians, therefore, the power of attorney is to be presumed to be executed in the United Kingdom and consequently requires to be embossed. In the absence of the power of attorney being embossed, the counsel appointed by the defendant cannot cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. I do not find any merit in the argument raised. The notification dated 14.9.2001 is applicable in respect of the documents sent from outside India for being used in India. It does not bar an NRI to execute a document in India to be used in the proceedings in India. In view of the said fact, mere fact that the defendants are NRIs does not debar them from executing a Vakalatnama in favour of a counsel so as to conduct the proceedings in India. The objection raised by the plaintiff appears to delay the finalization of the proceedings so as to continue with the possession of the property obtained on the basis of the exparte decree for specific performance. Civil Revision No. 3656 of 2010 [3] Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 05-07-2010 ds