An order refusing to exhibit a document is not revisable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless it satisfies the conditions mentioned in the proviso to the section.

( 1 ) A short paragraph might perhaps have been enough for disposal of the present case, but a short-cut is a long-cut where people's justice is involved, and so it persuades my pen to enter into a bit detail, but before I do so the circumstances leading to the present revision need be stated.

( 2 ) SMT. Bhabani Dhar who was the absolute owner of premises No. 671, lake Gardens, Calcutta - 700 045 executed a power-of-attorney in favour of her husband Jagadish Chandra Dhar and entered into an agreement for development of the said premises with Raj Kumar Singhania. As some dispute arose between them the said Raj Kumar Singhania instituted T. S. 101/93 in the Court of Id. Assistant District Judge at Alipore for referring the matter to arbitrator. The suit was being contested by Smt. Bhabani Dhar through her husband - constituted attorney Jagadish Chandra Dhar. The said Jagadish died on 13. 08. 1994 and the present petitioner No. 1 Naba Kumar Seal (defendant no. 2 in the suit) was contesting the suit on behalf of Bhabani Dhar on the basis of an alleged power-of-attorney. The present O. P. No. 1 Prabir Kumar dhar instituted T. S. 861/96 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for a declaration that defendant No. 1 Smt. Bhabani Dhar who is missing since 1982 be declared as dead, that he and his brother present O. P. No. 2 are the only joint owners, that all the documents including power-of-attorney in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are forged etc. The contention of the present petitioners in the said suit is that Bhabani Dhar is missing since 02. 02. 1995 and on the basis of power-of-attorney executed by her in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the present petitioner No. 1 entered appearance in the said suit 101/93. During trial of the said T. S. 861/96 the defendant (present petitioner No. 1) urged for marking the power-of-attorney dated 28. 09. 1994 executed by Smt. Bhabani Dhar in favour of them as an exhibit which was rejected by the Id. XIth Bench vide impugned order being No. 53 dated 10. 03. 2003.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order the present revision has been preferred.

( 4 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the Id. Court below was justified in passing the said order.

( 5 ) MR. S. S. Roy, Id. Counsel for the petitioners, on referring to section 85 of the Evidence Act contended that a power-of-attorney has been given a special position in view of the said provision whereby the Court is bound to presume that a power-of-attorney duly authenticated by a Notary Public was duly authenticated and executed, and as such the Id. Court below having acted with material irregularity in refusing to exhibit the document, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Id. Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand, on referring a decision reported in AIR 1952 Vindhya pradesh 4 advanced argument contending that in the facts and circumstances id. Court below rightly refused to exhibit the document specially when execution of the same is the subject-matter of dispute and such an order is not subject to revision.

( 6 ) NOW, authentication means more than mere attestation. What is required is an assurance by the person authenticating the identity of the person who has signed the instrument, as well as the fact of execution. In this connection, the decisions reported in Wall Mohammad vs. Jamal Uddin, AIR 1950 All. 524, may be referred to. The presumption of power-of-attorney under section 85 is undoubtedly rebuttable. Authentication is more than mere execution before one of the persons designated in section 85. For the purpose of presumption to be operative the authentication must be clear, specific and decisive. Where a person designated in section 85 puts his signature on the basis of identification made by an Advocate, the presumption under section 85 should not be drawn (AIR 1979 Bom. 202 ). So where a power-of-attorney is suspected, in