(August 2, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125564

2001-AD (Del)-6-966 :: 2001-ILRDLH-6-174

K. V. KOHLI Vs. state of delhi

J. D. Kapoor

( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of respondent no. 2 under Section 114 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for review of the order dated 4/12/2000 whereby the petition was restored purportely with the consent of the counsel for the respondent No. 2. Main contention of mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned counsel for the respondent is that the, power of attorney executed by "mr. Vinod Nair in favour of Mini Kohli is itself invalid and not in accordance with law and therefore the application moved by Mr. vinod Nair for restoration of the petition is by an unauthorised person and liable to be dismissed. Relevant facts need to be capitulated in brief.

( 2 ) THE instant probate petition was filed on 2/12/1987. The petitioner applied for probate on 2 2/07/1991. The petition was dismissed in default on 13/05/1992. The application under Order 9 rule 9 was moved on 17/08/1993 after a lapse of 15 months by one Shri Vinod Nair claiming to be the attorney of Mini Kohli. On 13/11/1998. Counsel for k. V. Kohli, Mr. H. L. Tiku applied for discharge as a counsel from the present proceedings. Application was allowed.

( 3 ) ANOTHER counsel Mr. Kirti Uppal who was engaged by the legal heirs also sought discharge from the proceedings on 14/12/1998. However, vakalatnama was filed only on behalf of Mini Kohli and not on behalf of other legal heirs. Today there is no vakalatnama on record of Mini Kohli in favour of Mr. Uppal.

( 4 ) IT is contended by counsel for respondent that since there is no power of attorney executed by Mini Kohli and other Lrs in favour of Mr. Vinod Nair and there is no vakalatnama of Mini Kohli in favour of Mr. Uppal, the application for restoration of the petition was not maintainable having been filed by unauthorised person.

( 5 ) THE application (IA. No. 8679/2000)for restoration of the suit dated 17/08/1993 was filed by, the counsel for the applicant which is accompanied by an affidavit of Mr. Vinod Nair. In the affidavit it was specifically mentioned by Mr. Vinod Nair that the holder of power attorney was Mini Kohli, wife of the petitioner. Thus the application and the affidavit itself disclosed that the same was moved on behalf of Mini Kohli and not on behalf of other legal heirs.

( 6 ) IN the order dated 9. 2. 94 this court observed with regard to power of attorney executed by Mini Kohli in favour of Mr Vinod Nair that the original power of attorney is stated to have been filed in Ex. 239/91 and certified copy of the power of attorney filed in the execution petition is issued by this court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The certification issued by. the Registry does not appear to be in order or in accordance with law.

( 7 ) VIDE order dated 11. 3. 94, the learned Single judge had observed that he was inclined to deal with any matter relating to this case until the power of attorneys are on record, as too much confusion is caused by not having the proper power of attorney on record.

( 8 ) VIDE order dated 3. 7. 95 the Registrar was directed by the court to go into the question of certification of the power of attorney.

( 9 ) THE Registrar recommended for detachment of the application alongwith affidavit, original powers of attorney, the reply/objections of the plaintiff and the documents filed by her and for further directions that the application be registered as OMP and the applicants should pay court fees of Rs. 2. 65.

( 10 ) VIDE order dated 1. 12. 99, this court dismissed the application moved on - behalf of the legal representatives of defendant No. 4. Learned counsel has pointed out that the applicant was required to file power of attorney as contemplated by law but has not done so till date and apart from these, no certification was issued by the Notary Public attached, to the County recorder City

( 11 ) FIRST contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is