A Supreme Court Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath has reiterated that the role of a Power of Attorney holder is limited to representing the principal.

Senior Counsel Harin Raval appeared for the appellants, while Counsel Divya Anand and Counsel Ankit Anandraj Shah appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the High Court had made some unwarranted remarks against the appellant while hearing a property dispute. The dispute was between Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar and Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar.

Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, who held a Power of Attorney executed in his favour by Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, had filed a restoration application in the High Court after the Second Appeal filed by Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar was dismissed for default. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Apex Court, challenging those remarks.

The Apex Court observed that "It is, thus, clear that after the death of the original plaintiff on 31st December 2006, the said Power of Attorney dated 4th January 2001 executed by him in favour of Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar ceased to have any effect. Though another Power of Attorney was executed in favour of said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, it was executed only by the appellant­ Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. As such, Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had no right to file appeal on behalf of the other legal heirs".

In that context, it was observed that "inasmuch as the Power of Attorney executed in his favour by appellant ­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar on 20th November 2012 stood subsequently cancelled on 20th June 2017 by a issuing Public Notice".

In light of the same, it was observed that "by the impugned judgment, an anomalous situation has arisen where the appellant ­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, who does not desire to prosecute the Second Appeal, would be forced to pursue his appeal. Similarly, the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff, who also do not want to continue with the proceedings, would be forced to continue with the litigation".

The Court also found that the observations made by the High Court against appellant-­Yogesh were totally unwarranted and uncalled for.

Consequently, the order of the High Court was set aside. No orders were passed as to costs.

Cause Title: Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani vs Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment