The death of the principal (Annapurna Devi) before the filing of the suit rendered the power of attorney holder (Plaintiff No.2) without the locus standi to pursue the suit seeking a declaration of the validity of the power of attorney.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioners in this CMP seeks to assail the judgment dated 16th January, 2024 (Annexure-5) passed in FAO No.157 of 2023, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar modified the order dated 15th September, 2023 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in IA No.1 of 2023 (arising out of CS No.1542 of 2023) and directed that Petitioners/Appellants shall not transfer the suit land to anybody by way of sale, mortgage or in any other mode without permission of the Court till disposal of the suit. Learned appellate Court, however, directed the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property, as directed by learned trial Court.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that the suit has been filed by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 claiming right, title, interest and possession // 2 // Page 2 of 4 over the suit land and also to declare the registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 30th April, 2014 executed by one Annapurna Devi in favour of Plaintiff No.2 along with other reliefs including the relief of permanent injunction. Plaintiffs/Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in IA No.1 of 2023 and learned trial Court without realizing that the Plaintiff No.2 has no locus standi to pursue the suit being POA of Annapurna Devi, who died since 28th April, 2020, directed the parties to maintain status quo over the entire suit property. Learned appellate Court, however, modified the impugned order to the aforesaid extent. None of the Courts considered that by the time the suit was filed, Annapurna Devi had died and thus, Plaintiff No.2 had no locus standi to pursue the suit and pray for the relief in respect of POA executed in his favour.

3.1 Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submits that death of Annapurna Devi has been conveniently suppressed by the Plaintiffs/Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in the plaint to get an equitable relief. None of the Courts have recorded a finding that the Plaintiffs have prima facie case in their favour. Petitioners have purchased the land in question in the year 1996. Thus, the Plaintiff No.1 cannot claim any title over the same being a subsequent purchaser. He, however, submits that the same is the subject matter of trial in the suit, but learned Courts passed the impugned order on an erroneous impression that the POA executed in favour of Plaintiffs/Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 is still valid. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable.

// 3 // Page 3 of 4 4. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 fairly concedes that by the time the suit was filed, said Annapurna Devi had died. Thus, the prayer made in respect of the declaration of the POA executed by said Annapurna Devi in favour of the Plaintiff No.2 may not be granted, but the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable. Plaintiff nNo.1 has locus standi to pursue the suit. It is further submitted that Plaintiff No.1 is a necessary party and Plaintiff No.2 is a proper party, who has been impleaded to avoid any further complications during trial of the suit. Learned trial Court, in order to protect the lis, has directed to maintain status quo over the suit property and restrained the present Petitioners who are Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 to alienate the property. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that said Annapurna Devi had executed registered POA dated 30th April, 2014 in favour of Plaintiff/Opposite Party No.2 by virtue of which he sold the land in question to Plaintiff No.1. Admittedly, Annapurna Devi died on 28th April, 2020. Thus, the Plaintiff No.2 does not have any locus standi to pursue the suit seeking for declaration of the registered GPOA dated 30th April, 2014 to be valid after the death of said Annapurna Devi. It appears that learned Cour