A power of attorney must be formally revoked and communicated to be effective; failure to do so validates actions taken under it.

ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the impugned orders dated 1st March, 2017 and 21st September, 2017 passed by the learned ADJ-01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in suit bearing CS No. 7211/2016.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court submitted that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid civil suit seeking possession and permanent injunction, and recovery of damages along with the compensation from respondent no. 1 herein/defendant before the learned Trial Court qua suit premises comprising two rooms, one toilet and bathroom, one varandha, once car garage along with the courtyard situated at Jangpura Church, 1, Church Road, Jangoura, Bhogal, New Delhi.

3. It is submitted that the aforesaid civil suit was filed by the plaintiff namely Delhi Diocesan Trust Association (hereinafter “Association‟) through the then Authorised Representative namely Mr. V.K. Samuel, i.e., the respondent no. 2 herein, however, the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter “AR”) herein filed an application dated 28th February, 2017, under Order XXIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking withdrawal of the said suit.

4. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order dated 1st March, 2017 by virtue of which it allowed the above withdrawal application and dismissed the suit as withdrawn after recording the statement of the AR.

5. It is submitted that the above said order is erroneous and has been passed without taking into account the entire facts and circumstances available on record. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that Mr. V.K. Samuel did not have valid authorization in his favour to file the withdrawal application as the same had been revoked by the Delhi Disocesan Council and the same has been duly recorded in the minutes of meeting of the Diocesan Council dated 6th September, 2013.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Mr. Mohit Heinz Hitter, i.e., the AR in the present petition, had also filed the Vakalatnama. It is also submitted that the earlier AR changed the Vakaltanma and engaged some other counsel on behalf of the Association and filed an application dated 28th February, 2017 for withdrawal of the suit.

7. It is further submitted that the prior to the filing of the said withdrawal application, Mr. Mohit Heinz Hitter had filed an application dated 30th January, 2017 under Section 151 of the CPC and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr. P.C.”) for informing the learned Trial Court that the earlier AR‟s power of attorney has already been withdrawn and that Mr. V.K. Samuel is committing an act of perjury by deliberately and dishonestly representing himself to be the AR of the plaintiff Association.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out the resolution dated 6th September, 2013 which is appended as Annexure P-25 with the instant petition and submitted that the authorization of Mr. V.K. Samuel was withdrawn by such resolution and Mr. Mohit Heinz Hitter was authorized by the Association for pursuing the matters and he was also the secretary of the said Association. It is also submitted that since Mr. Mohit Heinz Hitter is secretary, there is no need for passing any further resolution in favour of Mr. Mohit Heinz Hitter.

9. It is submitted that on the application dated 30th January, 2017 which is annexed as Annexure P-5 with the instant petition, the learned Trial Court had taken the cognizance and issued notice to the respondents vide order dated 8th February, 2017.

10. It is submitted that despite the knowledge that Mr. V.K. Samuel is not the authorized person, the application of withdrawal of the suit was allowed and the aforesaid suit was dismissed as withdrawn v