Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

The petitioner-defendant has called into question the order dated 28-6-2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the Court of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-14) on I.A. No. 47 in O.S. No. 1963 of 2002. In the suit for recovery of possession and damages filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 47 invoking Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('the said Act' for short) for rejecting the general power of attorney dated 3-6-2.015. The Trial Court dismissed it imposing the cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. Sri Pradeep Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits the that said general power of attorney document is not authenticated and executed as per Section 85 of the said Act. He read out the provisions contained in Section 85 of the said Act. It is extracted herein below:

"85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.-The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated."

3. The general power of attorney document (Annexure-K) shows that it was executed before G.H. Jadeja, Notary, Government of Gujarat. He submits that as per the Certificate of Practise (Annexure-N) issued by the Government of Gujarat, he can perform his notarial acts throughout Kotdasangani Taluka of Rajkot District. The general power of attorney document (Annexure-K) shows that it was executed at Gondal. Gondal is not a part of Kotdasangani Taluk and therefore the said Notary Public, G.H. Jadeja does not have the power to notarise the documents executed at the said place, namely, Gondal. For want of jurisdiction, it cannot be held the that said documents is executed before the Notary Public.

4. He submits the that new power of attorney dated 3-6-2015 is barred by limitation; its production cannot have the effect of ratifying the power of attorney stated to have been executed in 2000 or the act done by him in his capacity as the general power of attorney holder under the said document. He also relied on Rule 8(4) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 ('the said Rules' for short) for advancing the submission that he can practise only in the area in respect of which he has made the application or in such part thereof as the Government specifies.

5. He submits the that Notary Public is mandatorily required to maintain a Notarial Register in the prescribed Form XV of the Schedule as per Rule 11(2) of the said Rules. He submits that his requisition for the issuance of the said register is not acceded to by the said Notary Public. He submits that if the Notarial Register were only to be issued, it would have made the things clear as to whether the general power of attorney document in question was indeed executed before him. He submits the that fraud is being played by respondent.

6. The learned Counsel relies on the Division Bench decision of Lahore High Court in the case of Punjab Zamindars Bank Limited, Lyallpur v. Madan Mohan Singh and Others, AIR 1936 Lahore 321 (DB), wherein it is held that where the act of an agent is ratified by the principal but the ratification is made after the expiry of the period of limitation, the ratification has no effect.

7. He submits the that Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Wadhwa v. Dr. Sushma Govil, AIR 1989 Del. 144, has no doubt held the that first power of attorney, which was not duly authenticated by the Notary, gets validated by a second power of attorney; but it is good law where the point of limitation is not involved.

8. He relies on the Kerala High Court's decision in the case of Abdul Kadir v. Regional Passport Officer, (2005) 1 BC 69, wherein it is held the that Notary is authorised to practise in a given area. He cannot establish his office or place of practi