Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of arguments, no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar Awasthi, hence only the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.

2. Petitioner has instituted O.S. No. 99 of 1991 against respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar Awasthi. In the suit, plaintiff petitioner filed an application 73-Ga stating therein that she was suffering from heart disease, hence she had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her husband indicating therein that whatever her husband would do in the suit would be acceptable to her and binding upon her. The defendant opposed the application and stated that plaintiff was not ill as alleged by her. Power of Attorney was also filed along with the application. Copy of the said Power of Attorney is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said Power of Attorney, after recording that she was suffering from heart disease and unable to move, plaintiff stated that she was appointing her husband as general Power of Attorney holder and authorising him to do pairvi in the suit, to enter into compromise, to give statement and to do all other things, which are necessary for the suit and all the