The power of attorney holder was authorized to file and withdraw suits in respect of the property in question, and the plaintiff had an unqualified right to withdraw or abandon the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Agha, learned Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 8, 10 and 11, waive service on behalf of the respective respondents. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether, the Trial Court was justified in permitting, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner-plaintiff, to withdraw the Commercial Suit No. 28/2021/A [Special Civil Suit No. 9/2021/B(old)], without notice to the petitioner-plaintiff.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner appointed Mr. Sanjay Vithu Barde, as her power of attorney holder, vide instrument dated 16.04.2021, to do the following deeds, acts and things on her behalf, as if done by her personally; namely;

(i) To administer, manage and take care of the property known as 'Tollem E Oiterio Agali' also known as 'Agaye', surveyed under sub-division no. 1 of village Azossim, admeasuring an area of 3,06,575 square metres;

(ii) To hold meeting with the buyer of the said property and to receive token in her name or in her Account through RTGS, Demand Draft, Account payee cheques and to issue receipts and acknowledgement of having received the said consideration.

(iii) To institute or sign any suit, written statement, applications, affidavits, forms and declarations before any Court of law or other appropriate Authorities and to verify the same in respect of her right/share in the above referred property.

(iv) To file/institute and defend/oppose/contest any suit, appeal, revision, review, writ petition or any other legal proceedings before any or all Courts within the territory of India and to withdraw or compromise/ settle any suit, appeal, revision or review as he deems fit and proper and to file consent/compromise terms and to do all acts and things required to be done to safeguard and protect her rights and interest in the above mentioned property.

4. The petitioner ratified, confirmed and agreed to ratify and confirm all acts and things done by Mr. Sanjay Vithu Barde by virtue of general power of attorney dated 16.04.2021.

5. On 29.04.2021, petitioner-plaintiff instituted a Commercial Suit No. 28/2021/A [Special Civil Suit No. 9/2021/B(old)] in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, 'A' Court, Panaji, through her constituted power of attorney, Mr. Sanjay Vithu Barde. The plaint was verified by Mr. Sanjay Vithu Barde and he appointed Advocate Phadte. In the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff was seeking a decree to declare sale deed dated 31.03.2007, executed by the defendant no. 3 as a Director of defendant no. 4, with an active participation of defendant nos. 5 to 12, played a fraud on the plaintiff by executing a deed of sale, purportedly, by purchasing the suit property in the favour of defendant no. 4, on the ground that the very property was purchased by the plaintiff by registered deed of sale dated 21. 04.1999. It appears that the constituted attorney of the petitioner-plaintiff after going through the affidavit and reply filed by the defendant no. 1, made search before the Sub-Registrar, Panaji and other Government Departments and found that the defendant no. 1 was legally equipped with the sale deed and was a legal title owner in possession of the suit property. Thereafter, he made search in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Panaji to verify the plaintiff's title and the sale deed, by which, she was asserting her rights and title. Whereupon, he found that the sale deeds, on the basis of which, the plaintiff was claiming her title, were missing before the Sub-Registrar's office and even the volumes having been gone missing, which created a suspicion in his mind. The constituted attorney learnt that the sale deeds relied on, by the petitioner-plaintiff were not legal documents, but, were bogus and forged documents.

6. Having learnt the facts aforestated, Mr. Sanjay Vithu Barde, constituted attorney of the plaintiff, moved an Application, sup