1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of original plaintiffs seeking to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of judgment and order dated 11.09.2003, passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh.101 in Special Civil Suit No.93 of 1999.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarized as under:-

2.1 The petitioners are original plaintiffs. The petitioners are owners of agricultural lands bearing revenue Survey Nos. 376/2, 384, 385, 386and 387 situated within the revenue limits of Village: Gota, Ta:Daskroi, Dist: Ahmedabad.

2.2 The petitioners instituted Regular Civil SuitNo.93 of 1999 against respondent nos. 2 to 6 for a declaration to the effect that the agreement to sale executed by the petitioners in favour of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3-original defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 be declared as false, illegal and void.

2.3 It appears from the record that during the pendency of the suit, respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6were impleaded as party-defendants and further prayer was added to declare the sale-deeds dated 10.05.1999 with respect to the suit lands executed by the petitioners in favour of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 be declared illegal and void. It is important to note that the suit ,which was preferred by the petitioners being Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 1999 was through a constitute power of attorney i.e. respondent no.1herein.

2.4 It is the case on behalf of petitioners that in respect of the suit properties, the respondentno.1-the power of attorney of the petitioners, atone point of time, produced various instruments in the form of power of attorneys said to have been executed by the petitioners. It is the case on behalf of petitioners that on 30.05.2003, the petitioners revoked all the power of attorneys said to have been executed in favour of the respondent no.1 by serving him personal notice in addition to the public notice published in a daily newspaper “Jan Satta” dated 30.05.2003.

2.5 Record reveals that respondent no.1 replied to the said notice contending that the said power of attorneys executed by the petitioners are irrevocable and the same were executed pursuant to the agreement to sale dated 11.09.1997 executed by the petitioners in favour of one Kishorbhai Khamanbhai Goyal and two others.

2.6 It is the case on behalf of petitioners that despite revocation of the power of attorneys, respondent no.1 pursued Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 1999 filed in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural). This necessitated the petitioners to prefer an application below Exh.101 under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that, the power of attorneys executed in favour of respondent no.1 are revoked and the plaintiffs be permitted to amend the plaint by deleting the name of power of attorney i.e. respondent no.1 herein from the cause-title of the plaint.

2.7 Record reveals that respondent no.1 filed his written objections to the application Exh.101preferred by the petitioners-original plaintiffs contending that the said power of attorney is irrevocable and by virtue of the same, the petitioners-original plaintiffs have created interest in favour of respondent no.1.

2.8 Learned Civil Judge, upon hearing all the parties concerned, rejected the application Exh.101 vide order dated 10.09.2003. It is, at this stage, that the petitioners-original plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by learned Civil Judge, challenged the same by preferring the present petition under Article 227of the Constitution of India.

2. I have heard learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel for the petitioners. Though respondents have been served, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through their advocate.

3. Learned advocate Ms.Trusha Patel vehemently submitted that the impugned order under challenge is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 201, 202 and 204 of the