CR No. 4938 of 2022

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR No. 4938 of 2022

DATE OF DECISION :- November 23, 2022

Surjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Jasbir Singh and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:-

Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Revisionist Surjit Singh, who is one of the defendants in the civil

suit filed by plaintiff Jasbir Singh pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Amritsar is feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.9.2022 vide which his

application that the affidavit submitted by Kulwant Singh as attorney of

plaintiff Jasbir Singh be struck off from the file and may not be considered as

evidence for the reason that Jasbir Singh, presently residing in Spain has been

declared a proclaimed offender in F.I.R No. 98 dated 21.8.2008 for offences

under Sections 420, 466 IPC registered with Police Station Kathunangal,

Amritsar. According to the applicant, a proclaimed offender cannot appoint

any attorney and such attorney cannot put in appearance on his behalf and give

evidence.

The said application was contested on behalf of plaintiff Jasbir

Singh contending that Jasbir Singh lastly came to India in the month of

December, 2005 and then went abroad in January, 2006. The F.I.R in question

was registered during his absence from India and he was not aware of the

same. Further more, proceedings before the criminal Court are independent of

the proceedings in civil suit, therefore, application be dismissed.

PARVINDER SINGH

2022.11.24 17:18

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No. 4938 of 2022

2

After hearing arguments, the trial Court vide impugned order had

dismissed the application. The operative part of the impugned order is as

follows :-

“Arguments heard. Perusal of file reveals that counsel for the

applicant has placed on record copy of FIR No. 98 dated

21.8.2008 under Section 420, 466 IPC against Jasbir Singh and

Rattan Singh in which Jasbir Singh has been declared as

proclaimed offender on 5.3.2009. Further, the counsel for

applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and

Haryana High Court titled as 'Malook Singh versus State of

Punjab and another', 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 238 and 'Sarabjit

Singh versus State of Punjab and another' 2021(4) RCR

(Criminal) 87. However, the judgments relied upon by the

applicant are not applicable in the present suit as in those

judgments, the accused/applicant sought for quashing of FIR,

quashing of order declaring him proclaimed offender through

special power of attorney. However, in the present case it is not

the situation as mentioned above. The present case deals with the

suit for declaration and permanent injunction in which special

power of attorney can contest the suit. Moreover, there is no such

provision which debars a person who has been declared

proclaimed offender from pursing the civil suit through special

power of attorney. Hence, in view of arguments and documents

placed on record, the present application stands dismissed. Now,

to come up on 6.10.2022 for plaintiff evidence.”

The said order is being challenged by the revisionist defendant.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides going

PARVINDER SINGH

2022.11.24 17:18

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

CR No. 4938 of 2022

3

through the record.

I find the impugned order to be quite detailed, well reasoned, not

suffering from any illegality or infirmity. The plaintiff may be involved in a

criminal case but that does not debar him from executing power of attorney in

favour of a person and seeking his civil remedy in the Court of law. The

application filed by the revisionist defendant before the trial Court was totally

misconceived and was rightly dismissed. There is no reason to interfere with

the impugned order.

The Revision Petition is found to be w