In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 3407 of 2007 Date of decision: July 17, 2008 Nirmal Kumar (Wrongly mentioned as Nirmal Kaur) ... Appellant versus Charanjit Singh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment dated 12.6.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is the owner of route permit in question and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the original route permit to the plaintiff within two months. However, the relief granted to the defendant by way of counter claim was modified to the effect that the defendant is not entitled to get it renewed in his name in respect of Bus No. PAB-416. The bare allegations as contained in the plaint are that, the plaintiff was the owner of the route permit and he had handed over the same along with mini bus No.PAB-416 to the defendant for operation and he went abroad in connection with domestic work. But, the defendant illegally sold the mini Bus No.PAB-416 without his consent and by forging special power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff on 5.4.1988 in favour of the defendant and agreement dated 3.5.1988 was also executed. He also applied for renewal of the said route-permit and shifting the same to Bus No.PB-06-1055 as per rules. Thus, he has challenged the aforesaid documents as well as authority of the defendant to transfer the route permit in his name. R.S.A. No. 3407 of 2007 -2- *** Upon notice the defendant appeared and filed written statement wherein, he raised objections and submitted that though the plaintiff applied for seeking route permit in the year 1984 being riots effected person but had no financial resources to purchase the mini bus. He sought several extensions from 31.12.1987 onwards. Later on, he executed power of attorney dated 5.4.1988 in favour of the defendant authorising him to complete the formalities and obtain the route permit and use the same. He also executed an agreement dated 3.5.1988 in favour of the defendant. Consequently, the defendant completed all the formalities for obtaining the route permit and purchased mini bus No.PAB-416 from Joginder Singh etc. for a consideration of Rs.55,000/- vide writing dated 21.10.1988 and temporary route permit bearing No.150/M/Gsp/88 was obtained by him from the authority for a period from 7.11.1988 to 7.3.1989. Later on, regular route permit was obtained by him from 9.3.1989 to 8.3.1992 which was renewed up to 8.3.1997. It was further averred that the plaintiff sold the route permit in question for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- vide receipt dated 1.12.1988 and he vide his application dated May/June, 1997 addressed to Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar disclosed that he had leased out the route permit to the defendant on monthly rental of Rs.2500/- only. It was further averred by the defendant that a valid special power of attorney was executed and on that basis he had sold the bus for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, he purchased bus No.PAB- 1017. He also admitted that he had applied for shifting the route permit to bus No.PB-06-1055 which was owned by Subash Puri. Similarly, an application for renewal of the route permit and its transfer in the name of the defendant was moved by him to the Regional Transport Authority as the route permit was used by the defendant throughout. The plaintiff had no right to seek renewal of the route permit. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, whereas, the counter claim as raised by the defendant that he is the power of attorney of the plaintiff and entitled to renewal of the mini bus route permit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), vide its judgment dated R.S.A. No. 3407 of 2007 -3- *** 15.10.2003. During appeal, the Appellate Authority, vide its judgment dated 12.6.2007, while accepting the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that he is owner of the mini bus route permit as referred to above and the defendant was directed to hand over the original route permit to him within two months and also that he was not entitled to get renewal of the route permit in his name. Hence this appeal by the defendant appellant. It is established on record that route permit of mini bus No.PAB-416 is in the name of the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff executed special power of attorney in favour of the defendant to deal with the mini bus. It is also not disputed that the defendant had been dealing with the bus and the route permit being special power of attorney, but it does not mean that the defendant could get the route permit transferred in his name. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that he had sold the mini bus No.PAB-416. Now he is getting transfer the route permit for the mini bus No.PAB-416 which is not owned by him but is owned by one Subash Puri. The defendant had no power to shift the route permit to the third person. It would also not be inappropriate to observe that the route permit could not be purchased in this manner as alleged by the defendant. The plaintiff is alleged to have executed agreement dated 3.5.1988 and also power of attorney dated 5.4.1988. Since the plaintiff had been acting as special power of attorney, therefore, in the presence of the special power of attorney, the execution of the agreement in his favour could be looked into with suspicion so as the receipt regarding purchase of mini bus for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant could not blow hot and cold within same breath. On one side he is claiming himself to the special power of attorney and continued acting in pursuance of the said attorney for years together. Now he is claiming himself to be the owner on the basis of agreement as well as receipt. Under these circumstances, it would not be inappropriate to say that both these two documents are not genuine. Since the route permit as issued by the authorities is not proved to be transferable, therefore, the R.S.A. No. 3407 of 2007 -4- *** appellant could not claim his ownership rights over the route permit by way of purchase from the plaintiff. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. July 17, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge