1. Rule. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yarin Oza for learned advocate Mr. M.C. Barot waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. By preferring this application in Second Appeal No.202 of 2015, the appellant has requested to frame following additional substantial questions of law:

E. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case whether the interpretation of terms and statements made in irrevocable power of attorney dated 29/3/1989, and the conclusions so arrived by the lower courts are illegal, misreading of POA, and perverse in its approach on the fact of the terms of the irrevocable POA, having regard to the true intent rights and obligation arising from various clauses of the POA including the right to deal with and register document in the office of the sub-registrar by admitting such execution?

F. Whether in a case of irrevocable joint power of attorney given by two co-owners (mother and son), such irrevocable power of attorney gets terminated automatically on the death of mother (co-owner) and that too when the other co-owner (son) becomes absolute owner as per the revenue record?

G. In absence of any legal termination of irrevocable general power of attorney coupled with interest, by the sole owner (son) as per the law, whether the POA in the facts and circumstances of the present case subsists?

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat for the applicant and learned senior counsel Mr. Yatin Oza for Mr. M.C. Barot learned advocate for the respondents.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that there is question of interpretation of terms and statements made in irrevocable general power of attorney executed by the deceased- Chanchalben and respondent no.1 namely Manubhai Motibhai Patel. That, the trial Court has not properly considered the terms and statements made in the irrevocable power of attorney in its judgment. That, in the power of attorney, the appellant was given all the powers of executing the documents, to remain present before the office of Sub-Registrar and in other government offices or specific government office to do any act which can be done by the executor of the power of attorney. That, the power of attorney was in nature of irrevocable and was never terminated by the executor. No notice was received by the present applicant terminating the power of attorney. That, the substantial question no. F was also material question which requires to be framed by this Court; as irrevocable power of attorney was joint power of attorney given by two owners i.e. mother and son and such irrevocable power of attorney cannot be terminated automatically on the death of the mother (coowner) and that too when the co-owner (son) becomes absolute owner as per the revenue record. In support of his arguments, learned senior advocate has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 3 SCC 378, 2019 LawSuit(SC) 1077. It was further submitted that sub-section 5 of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the present applicant to raise the plea at the time of hearing that the questions framed either do not arise in the case or the questions framed are not the substantial questions of law by assigning reasons. Learned advocate for the applicant has also placed reliance in case of Syeda Rahimunnisa Versus Malan Bi and Another, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 315 and argued that High Court cannot proceed to hear second appeal without formulating the substantial questions of law involved in the appeal and if it does so, it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on the Court. Hence, it was requested by the learned advocate for the applicant to allow this application and frame additional questions of law No. E, F, and G as stated in the application.

5. From the other side, learned senior advocate for the respondents has strongly objected the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that there is no question of