##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:202

HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

Civil Revision No. 100 of 2025

06 January, 2026

Anupama Prakash

--Revisionist

Versus

Anirudh Singh and others

--Respondents

--------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist.

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The instant revision has been preferred by the

defendant against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by

the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun in Original Suit

No. 279 of 2025, titled as Anirudh Singh vs. Anupama

Prakash and others, whereby the application preferred by

the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC , i.e., paper

no. 26A1 has been rejected.

2. Instant matter was heard earlier on different stages

and on 25.09.2025, further proceeding of O.S. No. 279 of

2025 was stayed. Relevant paragraphs of the order dated

25.09.2025 are reproduced herein as under:-

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that plaintiff is

nephew of the defendant no. 1 and he has given general power

of attorney to the defendant / revisionist on 24.04.2015 and

being power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 /

revisionist executed five sale deeds.

4. Apart from this, he submits that as per averment made in

the plaint power of attorney dated 24.04.2015 was revoked on

29.03.2025, the date after execution of the sale deeds,

therefore, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to

1

2026:UHC:202

institute the suit. He further submits that suit property was

undervalued and by taking all these pleas the defendant moved

an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the

plaint, however, the same has been rejected and being

aggrieved with the same, instant revision has been preferred.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that

undisputedly, as per the plaintiff itself registered power of

attorney was revoked after execution of the five sale deeds,

therefore, for plaintiff there was no cause of action to file suit

for cancellation of sale deeds, which were executed prior to the

revocation of power of attorney. He further argued that total

valuation of the property is approx. Rs. Nine Crore but it was

undervalued and the plaintiff valued it only Rs. 24 lakh. He

further argued that while rejecting the application under Order

7 Rule 11 CPC, these two important aspects have not been

considered by the trial court. In support of his contention, he

has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9472 of 2023 (V. Ravikumar

Vs. S. Kumar) 2025 INSC 343, particularly, by place reliance to

paragraph 8 and submits that if power of attorney is revoked,

after execution of sale deed, then no cause of action will arise

for institution of suit for cancellation of sale

deed.

3. The main contention of the revisionist is that as per

the plaint, the power of attorney dated 24.04.2015 was

revoked on 25.03.2025, after execution of five sale deeds

which are the subject matter of the suit, and, therefore,

there is no cause of action to file the suit, and,

furthermore the suit was also undervalued and on these

two grounds, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC

has been filed, however, the trial court by the order

impugned reject the suit and being aggrieved instant civil

revision has been filed.

4. On the previous date after hearing at length this

Court passed the following order on 19.12.2025.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by respondent /

plaintiff seeking declaration of five sale deeds as null and void as the

same are forged and also praying for permanent injunction restraining

2

2026:UHC:202

the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the

plaintiffs.

4. Mr. Siddharath Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that

suit is not maintainable at all, as the same is filed on fictitious grounds

without any substance and