CHUNILAL BHAGWANJI Vs. KANMAL LALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order made by the Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmedabad reversing the decision of the trial Court. The question arising is one of procedure.

(2.) THE suit is a suit by a minor by his next friend, his aunt, Bai Dhapu, and it appears from the plaint that the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of a firm, known as Kisan Baf and Sukalchand Kanmal, and that the minor plaintiff claims to be the owner of the firm. THE plaint was signed and verified by one Saremal, and it was presented by a pleader, Mr. Thakor, whose vakalatnama had been signed by Saremal. THE plaintiff's case is that Saremal was the duly authorized agent of Bai Dhapu to present the plaint, to sign it, and to appoint a pleader, Saremal being authorized so to act under the power-of-attorney which is exhibit 3/2.

(3.) BUT the lower appellate Court did not really address its mind to the terms of the power-of-attorney. The learned Judge seems to have assumed that the power-of-attorney authorized Saremal to file a suit in the name of the minor using the name of Bai Dhapu as next friend. The learned trial Judge, I think, took a different view, because he said that Bai Dhapu had no right to pass a general power-of-attorney in respect of the minor's property, and I think that that view is right. In my opinion a general power-of-attorney would not enable the attorney to file suits in the name of unspecified minors, using the grantor's name as next friend. In the power-of-attorney given to Saremal there is not a word about the minor, or about Bai Dhapu being a next friend. It purports to be a general power-of-attorney in favour of Saremal authorizing him as regards dealings in the names of Kishandas Bapna and Sukalchand Kanmal to do various acts, including filing suits and taking proceedings "on my behalf."