JUDGEMENT
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. -
(1.) A short paragraph might perhaps have
been enough for disposal of the present case, but a short-cut is a long-cut where
people's justice is involved, and so it persuades my pen to enter into a bit detail,
but before I do so the circumstances leading to the present revision need be stated.
(2.) Smt. Bhabani Dhar who was the absolute owner of premises No. 671,
Lake Gardens, Calcutta - 700 045 executed a power-of-attorney in favour of
her husband Jagadish Chandra Dhar and entered into an agreement for
development of the said premises with Raj Kumar Singhania. As some dispute
arose between them the said Raj Kumar Singhania instituted T.S. 101/93 in
the Court of Id. Assistant District Judge at Alipore for referring the matter to
arbitrator. The suit was being contested by Smt. Bhabani Dhar through her
husband - constituted attorney Jagadish Chandra Dhar. The said Jagadish
died on 13.08.1994 and the present petitioner No. 1 Naba Kumar Seal (defendant
No. 2 in the suit) was contesting the suit on behalf of Bhabani Dhar on the
basis of an alleged power-of-attorney. The present O. P. No. 1 Prabir Kumar
Dhar instituted T.S. 861/96 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for a declaration
that defendant No. 1 Smt. Bhabani Dhar who is missing since 1982 be declared
as dead, that he and his brother present O.P. No. 2 are the only joint owners,
that all the documents including power-of-attorney in favour of defendant Nos.
2 & 3 are forged etc. The contention of the present petitioners in the said suit
is that Bhabani Dhar is missing since 02.02.1995 and on the basis of power-of-
attorney executed by her in favour of defendant Nos. 2 & 3, the present
petitioner No. 1 entered appearance in the said suit 101/93. During trial of the
said T. S. 861/96 the defendant (present petitioner No. 1) urged for marking
the power-of-attorney dated 28.09.1994 executed by Smt. Bhabani Dhar in
favour of them as an exhibit which was rejected by the Id. XIth Bench vide
impugned order being No. 53 dated 10.03.2003.
(3.) Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order the present
revision has been preferred.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.