13943-13944 of 2020, filed by Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani, challenge the final judgment and order dated 14 February 2020, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Application (for condonation of delay)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/abuse-of-process-of-law-a-case-of-delayed-fir-filing/
No 2 of 2018 in R/Second Appeal
No 238 of 2015 with Misc. 3
A first appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No 77 of 2008, was preferred by the LRs of the original plaintiff including the appellant- Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, being the son of the original plaintiff before the 4 Additional District Judge, Mehsana, which too came to be dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 23 July 2015. Thus, Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar was the power of attorney holder only for the appellant- Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, and not for the other LRs of the original plaintiff on whose behalf the aforesaid Second Appeal had been preferred. 7 The High Court, vide Order dated 9 March 2016, allowed the said application and restored the Second Appeal to its original status.
9
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-circumstantial-evidence-conviction-reversed/
The appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, on coming to know about the filing of the aforesaid Second Appeal by his Power of Attorney holder-Vithalbhai, cancelled the Power of Attorney, vide Public Notice dated 20 June 2017, since the aforesaid Second Appeal had been preferred without his knowledge or instruction. Civil Application
No 1 of 2018 before the High Court for review of its order dated 11 September 2017 and consequent restoration of the Second Appeal, as well as Misc. Raval submits that the very application for review of the order dated 11 September 2017, at the behest of the so- called Power of Attorney Holder Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, was not maintainable. It is submitted that the application for review, filed using the earlier Power of Attorney of original plaintiff dated 4 January 2001 could not have been filed, inasmuch as, on the death of the original plaintiff, the Power of Attorney Holder Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had no authority to continue with the proceedings.
From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that Second Appeal No.238 of 2015 was filed on behalf of all the legal heirs of the original plaintiff by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, claiming to be the Power of Attorney Holder under Power of Attorney executed by the original plaintiff on 4 January 2001. Though another Power of Attorney was executed in favour of said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, it was executed only by the appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/quashing-of-proceedings-in-criminal-case-no-542-of-2020/
The applicants state that an office objection was raised by the Registry as regards non-production of power of attorney or authority letter on behalf of all the heirs of deceased plaintiff authorizing the deponent to prefer the second appeal. The applicant submits that due to bona fide mistake the names of all the plaintiffs were mentioned in the title (appellant side) in the above mentioned second appeal.
It could thus be seen that, since Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar was having Power of Attorney on behalf of the appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, the appeal could have been filed only on his behalf. We, therefore, find that, by the impugned judgment, an anomalous situation has arisen where the appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, who does not desire to prosecute the Second Appeal, would be forced to pursue his appeal.
Case Title: YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI Vs. NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY (2023 INSC 428)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003114-003115 / 2023
