JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.

List has been revised. Counsel for the respondents is not present.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh in Misc. Case No. 53 of 2004 whereby he has rejected the application under Section 5 of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. to recall the ex parte judgment dated 17.4.2004 passed in Original Suit No. 125 of 1998 instituted by respondents and order dated 24.5.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Azamgarh affirming the order of trial Court dated 3.3.2006.

4. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Original Suit No. 125 of 1998 instituted by respondents was decreed on 17.4.2004. He submits that the petitioner filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. alongwith delay condonation application on 28.5.2004, but the trial Court as well as revision Court illegally without appreciating correct facts on record has misconstrued the power of attorney in recording a finding that power of attorney had authorised the pairokar of the petitioner to file and contest the cases under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and not other proceedings. He further submits that finding of the Court below that power of attorney was not general in nature and was only with respect to specific cases under Sections 138 and 142 of N.I. Act is not sustainable being perverse. Hence, it is submitted that revision Court has committed manifest irregularity in dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

5. In the counter-affidavit, it is pleaded that since power of attorney authorised Professor A. Chakravarti to deal with all matters including pending and ongoing matters of the company relating to cases under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act, and therefore, power of attorney was not general in nature and in fact authorises the holder of power of attorney to only deal with cases under Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act.

6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. The relevant extract of power of attorney on which the Court below has placed reliance in recording a finding that holder of power of attorney was only authorised to deal with cases under Section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act is reproduced herein below :

''To deal with all matters including pending & ongoing matters of the Company relating to cases under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in this connection, to appear before any Authorities on behalf of the Company and to give answers to any questions arising out of the proceedings before them, to make, sign and submit statements, submissions, applications, affidavits, petitions, verifications, returns and other records before the appropriate authorities as may be required.''

8. Reading of first two lines of relevant paragraph of power of attorney, extracted above, clearly suggest that the holder of power of attorney was authorised to deal with all matters including pending and ongoing matters of the company relating to cases under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act. Thus, the word 'including' referred in the first line of the relevant paragraph, extracted above, clearly suggest that the holder of power of attorney was authorised to deal with all matters including the matters relating to cases under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act.

9. Reading of the power of attorney does not suggest that it excludes all other matters except the cases under Section 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act which the holder of power of attorney was authorised to deal with.

10. In such view of the fact, the finding returned by the trial Court as well as revision Court is perverse and against the record. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that trial Court as well as revision C