NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision application is against the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by Subordinate Judge, VIIth, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 33 of 2002 whereby the opposite party Nos. 1 to 15, who were plaintiffs, have been allowed to withdraw the suit. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court below has erroneously and illegally allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit without taking into consideration that the suit was filed through the petitioner who is the constituted attorney of all the plaintiffs and the withdrawal has been allowed against the consent of the said attorney. The Court below has passed a detailed order and recorded reasons. It has been noticed that the suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiffs right in the suit land and for injunction. The petition had been filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs along with Vakalatnama, which has been signed by all of them. In the application, all the plaintiffs have stated that they have abandoned their claim over the land and they did not want to proceed with the suit any more. It was further stated that earlier power of attorney was given in favour of the petitioner, who misused the power and wrongly implicated the said plaintiffs in litigation. The plaintiffs, thus, revoked the power of attorney dated 25.8.2003 and thereby the said attorney holder ceased to have any power. The said revocation was also advertised through local news paper. The deed of revocation of the said power of attorney was also produced before the Court below, who perused the same and found that the same was registered in Raniganj Sub Registry, District Burdwan (W.B.), completely revoking the powers of the said attorney. The paper cutting of the local news paper were also produced before the Court below by which it was made known to all concerned that the power given in favour of the petitioner has been revoked. The defendant of the suit did not object to the withdrawal. The learned Court below, on the said consideration has permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the Trial Suit No. 33 of 2002 for the ends of justice.
(2.) MR . V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in fact there is no revocation of power of attorney by all the executants of the said power, but only four persons have revoked the same, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, on the basis of the said power, has already entered into several transactions and has also incurred liability and that he is also to get some profit out of those transactions, as agreed by the plaintiffs. He further submitted that the institution of the suit was one of the steps which would have ultimately fetched some profit for the plaintiffs and also for the attorney -petitioner. According to the learned counsel in that view, the Court below should not have allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit. Almost all the said grounds were also argued before the Court below. After due consideration of the contentions of the parties, the Court below has passed the impugned order. The petitioner is mainly concerned with his interest on the basis of some agreement between him and the plaintiffs. In my view if there is any agreement between the plaintiffs and the attorney holder creating any rights and liabilities between them, the same has nothing to do with the defendants of Title Suit No. 33 of 2002, who are strangers. The petitioner 'sclaim against the plaintiffs -opposite parties has no concern with the said defendants and the withdrawal of the suit would not be in any way a clog in seeking any legal remedy available to the petitioner against the said plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality or error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below in passing the impugned order.
(3.) THIS application is, accordingly, dismissed.;