The court emphasized the principle that a party may be held guilty of abuse of the process of the court if they resort to and encourage multiplicity of proceedings or circumvent the law by indirect means.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioner is a Developer. A power of Attorney was given to him by the respondent No. 7 who is the owner of a plot of land within Kolkata Municipal Corporation area, to be specific in Jadavpur. By the general power of attorney which was registered in the year 2009 the owner of the plot of land gave the petitioner some powers for development of the property by construction of a multistoried building. Originally the plot of land was owned by the respondent No. 7 and her mother; her mother died in the year 2016. When the writ application is filed, that is in the year 2017, the respondent No. 7 became the sole owner of the said plot of land. However, the power of attorney was given to the writ petitioner/developer in the year 2009 only by the respondent No. 7 and not by her mother. Subsequently due to some disputes the respondent No. 7 cancelled the said registered power of attorney by a deed of cancellation which was executed and registered on 17th March, 2010. Thereafter, the respondent No. 7 entered into an agreement with another developer, who is the respondent No. 8 in the writ application for development of the said property being the plot of land.

2. The writ petitioner has alleged that after getting the power of attorney in the year 2009 he took some steps for development. For taking the preliminary steps for development of the property huge amount of money was spent by him. He spent the money though no development agreement was signed between the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 7 and her mother. The writ petitioner/ Developer spent the money solely by oral assurances given by respondent No. 7 and her mother about entering into the development agreement.

3. According to the writ petitioner on 10th April, 2010 he got a hint that the respondent No. 7 might have revoked the general power of attorney given to him. It does not appear from the writ petition or from annexures thereto that the writ petitioner made any further enquiry at that time about such revocation. As the relationship between the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 7 and her mother became sour the writ petitioner did not keep in touch with them i.e. the owners of the plot of land and after the death of the mother of respondent No. 7 in the year 2016 he went to inspect the property on 17th February, 2017 for commencing construction work and to meet the respondent No. 7 when he found that the respondent No. 7 had already given power of attorney to another developer for developing suit property and entered into a joint venture agreement. The writ petitioner in the year 2017 filed a title suit being TS No. 595 of 2017 in the Court of Learned 1st Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore, praying decree for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit he prayed for declaration that the deed of revocation of the general power of attorney which was given to him was not binding on him, the registered joint venture agreement entered by and between the respondent No. 7 and the other developer being the respondent No. 8 is void ab-initio, illegal and inoperative and further for a declaration that the registered general power of attorney executed by the respondent No. 7 in favour of the new developer i.e. the respondent No. 8 dated 16th March 2016 is also void ab-initio, illegal, in etc. He prayed for further declaration that he has the absolutely full right to act as lawfully constituted attorney of the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 had filed a suit against him after cancellation of the power of attorney which was dismissed. He also wrote a letter to KMC for taking steps against construction of the building to which KMC has not taken any steps.

4. Mainly the above are the facts of the case made out in the writ application and as appears from the annexures thereto.

5. The respondent No. 7 i.e. owner of the plot of land and the respondent No. 8 i.e. the new developer with whom the respondent No. 7 has entered into a development