Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 607 (RAJ)

Trividesh Yadav v. Bhawani Singh

2001-04-13

MOHD.YAMIN

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order of learned District Judge, Jaipur district, Jaipur dated 2.6.1995 by which he confirmed the order of learned Munsif, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 22.5.1995 whereby application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 3. As notices were sent to the opposite party on 2.12.1996 to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and disposed of. It may be stated that the petition was time barred by one day and an application U/s. of the Limitation Act was submitted and the notice was sent to the respondents on 3.4.1996, it was ordered that the application be allowed subject to the objections raised by the respondents. The counsel for petitioner should draw the attention of Court first to this application, but he took it casually and did not submit even a word about it. 4. However, so far as limitation is concerned there is delay of only one day. As per application, the revision petition was filed at the residence of Dy. Registrar because of the wrong calculation due to serious illness of mother of the petitioner and wife of his counsel. Ordinarily this reason cannot be the ground to condone the delay, but the respondent has not resisted the application at all. Therefore, the application Under section 5 of the Limitation Act which is supported by affidavit is hereby allowed. 5. So far as merits are concerned, the case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 executed an agreement for sale of their very old possession on sawai chak land on undivided khasra No. 233/234 measuring 15 bigha and 4 biswas situated in area of village Gopalpura Deori, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur for Rs. 6,30,400/- on 13.12.88. An amount of Rs. 30,000/- was received by non-petitioner on 13.12.88. A power of attorney was also executed in favour of the petitioner by non-petitioner Bhawani Singh at Jaipur on the same day i.e. 13.12.88. Another power of attorney was executed by non-petitioner No. 3 Prithviraj in favour of the petitioner at Alwar on 16.12.88. The agreement was attested by Nortary Public whereas both the powers of Attorney were got registered. A power of attorney was also executed in favour of the petitioner by non-petitioner Bhawani Singh at Jaipur on the same day i.e. 13.12.88. Another power of attorney was executed by non-petitioner No. 3 Prithviraj in favour of the petitioner at Alwar on 16.12.88. The agreement was attested by Nortary Public whereas both the powers of Attorney were got registered. The petitioner was given another authority to sell possession of the above land to anybody and to make use of the same and enter into the above land in any litigation on behalf of the non-petitioners vide above power of attorney. After payment of Rs. 30.000/- a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid in January, 1988 and the rest of the amount was agreed to be paid in six equal installments. Non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 undertook to provide a map of the land. As soon as non-petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 came to know that non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to have entered into agreement, they conspired and assured to pay more money and ultimately a plan was made to make a breach of the agreement or to withdraw or cancel the aforesaid power of attorney. The petitioner had to file a revenue suit for regularisation of the aforesaid sawai chak land and it was within the knowledge of non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 that such a suit had been filed. Ultimately they made a mind to cancel the power of attorney. A suit was filed to cancel the cancellation of power of attorney as well as for injunction not to sell the property to anybody else. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. The learned Munsif. after hearing both the parties, vide his judgment dated 22.5.93 dismissed the application for temporary injunction and the learned District Judge in appeal maintained the order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made quite a good number of submissions and tried to support his case by citing Puran Singh Sahni v. Smt. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani & Ors., 1991 (1) U.J. (SC) 566 and submitted that the power of attorney could not have been cancelled in view of the agreement and that both the courts have committed error of jurisdiction, therefore, the revision petition should be allowed. 7. I have gone through the entire record. 7. I have gone through the entire record. It is on record that on 31.5.89, Bhawani Singh had informed that the power of attorney was cancelled. Similarly, Prithviraj Singh had informed that he had also cancelled the power of attorney. The dates of information are mentioned in the order of the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted me to interpret the agreement in the way so that the petitioner may get the benefit thereof. Needless to say that the intentions of the parties are to be seen after evidence has been led and not before that. There is a clear cut finding of the learned Munsif confirmed by the learned District Judge that the powers of attorney have been cancelled. It has been further found by the learned Munsif that there was no Proof that the plaintiff was handed over possession and this fact has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Judge. I am of the view that concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. I am also of the view that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the courts below in this case and consequently, there is no force in this revision petition filed Under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******