IMPORTANT POINT
After withdrawal of Second Appeal by appellant, application for restoration, at behest of Power of Attorney Holder, whose Power of Attorney stood cancelled, was not at all tenable.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13943-13944 of 2020, filed by Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani, challenge the final judgment and order dated 14th February 2020, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Application (for condonation of delay) No. 2 of 2018 in R/Second Appeal No. 238 of 2015 with Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No. 1 of 2018 in R/Second Appeal No. 238 of 2015, whereby the High Court passed strictures against the appellant-Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani and recalled its order dated 11th September 2017, thereby restoring the aforesaid Second Appeal to its original number and status.

3. Aggrieved by the adverse remarks made by the High Court in its judgment, appellant- Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani has preferred these appeals so as to have those remarks expunged.

4. Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13079-13080 of 2020 have been filed by Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar against the same impugned judgment and order as above, albeit the challenge here is against the restoration of Second Appeal to its original number and status and the costs imposed upon the appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar.

5. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under :

5.1 One Jesangbhai Kachrabhai Parmar (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff”) had instituted a suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2015 (Old No.165/2001), before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, challenging the sale deed dated 14th September 2000 executed by one Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary in favour of one Sureshbhai Hirabhai Chaudhary with respect to the suit property.

5.2 The said suit came to be dismissed by the 7th Additional Civil Judge, Mehsana, vide judgment and decree dated 12th June 2008. It is pertinent to note that the original plaintiff had expired on 31st December 2006, i.e. during the pendency of the said suit and his Legal Representatives (“LRs” for short) had been brought on record in the said proceedings.

5.3 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 4th Additional District Judge, Mehsana, which too came to be dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 23rd July 2015.

5.4 Thereafter, a Second Appeal, being Regular Second Appeal No. 238 of 2015 was preferred before the High Court by the LRs of the original plaintiff, including the appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. It is pertinent to note that the Second Appeal, which displayed all the LRs of the plaintiff as appellant-s, was preferred by one Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, who was the Power of Attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the original plaintiff on 4th January 2001, prior to his death. Another Power of Attorney dated 20th November 2012, had also been executed in his favour by the appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. Thus, Lalitbhai Jesangbhai 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. Crucially, the other LRs of the original plaintiff had not signed any Vakalatnama to prefer the aforesaid Second Appeal.

5.5 The registry of the High Court, recognizing the aforementioned discrepancy, raised office objections as to whether the Vakalatnama had been signed by all the appellant-s or not.

5.6 In spite of repeated opportunities, these objections were not removed, and the aforesaid Second Appeal came to be dismissed on 27th November 2015, for non-removal of office objections. Thereafter, an application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 894 of 2016 for restoration of the Second Appeal was filed wherein it was stated that the Power of Attorney holder, i.e. Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had informed the registry of the High Court about his inability to obtain