SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) Challenging the legality and validity of the Order No. 111 dated 06.05.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Jangipur, in Partition Suit No. 66 of 2000, the present petitioner/plaintiff has filed this application on the ground that the learned Court below has come to an erroneous finding treating the alleged power of attorney, which was admittedly executed in Bangladesh, is legal and applicable in India. The learned Court below has also directed the said power of attorney holder to deposit Rs.550 for the purpose of impounding the same under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act.
(2.) In the revisional application, the plaintiff/petitioner specifically contended that the learned Trial Judge has mechanically passed the impugned order and failed to appreciate that the said alleged power of attorney holder had no authority to file an application under Section 47 of the Code and have no locus to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code. He further contended that question of authentication by the Indian Embassy is a paramount consideration, and since no authentication has been done by the said Embassy, the said alleged power of attorney cannot be treated as legal.
(3.) On perusal of the Order dated 06.05.2014, I find that the learned Court below held that since the power of attorney was executed outside India and a used in India, he shall liable to pay stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, but the learned Court below never considered that the said unregistered power of attorney was executed in Bangladesh and if it requires authentication or not.;