Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 321 (AP)

Ayesha Asma v. Abida Begum

2012-03-21

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 06.03.2012, in I.A.No.176 of 2012 in O.S.No.380 of 2012, on the file of the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. I have heard Mr. Ali Farooque, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. R. A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the record. The respondent is the plaintiff in the above-mentioned suit filed against the petitioners. As the petitioners are living abroad (Riyadh), Soudi Arabia, they have appointed one Syed Khaja Shakiruddin as their General Power of Attorney to represent them in the case. The said Power of Attorney was executed at Riyadh on 22.02.2012 and attested by the Embassy of India at Riyadh. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.176 of 2012 to permit their General Power of Attorney to represent them in the suit. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition. The operative portion of the order of the lower Court reads as under: “I perused the entire record. This petition is filed by the petitioner to permit him to represent on behalf of petitioner/defendants. GPA executed by the defendants in favour of petitioner at Riyadh at Saudi Arabia. As per the Stamp Duty Act the GPA should be validated i.e., within 3 months after he has been first received in India. The GPA filed by the petitioner not validated in India. Hence, GPA is not valid according to law.” A perusal of the above re-produced portion of the order of the lower Court shows that the same is un-intelligible, to say the least. The learned II Junior Civil Judge is not diligent even in properly describing the extant Act governing stamp duty. The observation “as per the Stamp Duty Act, the G.P.A. should be validated i.e. within three months after he has been first received in India” is absolutely vague and ambiguous. More over, no provision has been referred to by the lower Court while holding that the G.P.A. requires to be validated within 3 months after the same is received in India. More over, no provision has been referred to by the lower Court while holding that the G.P.A. requires to be validated within 3 months after the same is received in India. A perusal of the copy of the General Power of Attorney would show that the same was prepared on stamp papers worth Rs.60/-which are far in excess of the stamp duty of Rs.20/-prescribed for General Power of Attorney and the same has been signed by the petitioners and attested by the Embassy of India at Riyadh. The necessity of validation of a General Power of Attorney executed abroad would arise only where an instrument chargeable with duty was executed out of India and not stamped. In the instant case, as noted above, the General Power of Attorney was duly stamped and executed in Soudi Arabia at Riyadh. Therefore, there is no need for validation of the General Power of Attorney. The lower Court has ignored the provisions of Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which envisage presumption in favour of the Power of Attorney executed abroad, if the same is authenticated by the Indian Consul or Vice-Consul or representatitive of the Central Government. The lower Court has utterly failed to notice the correct legal position and committed a serious error in rejecting the application of the petitioners. Before parting with this case, I feel the necessity of placing on record my feelings over the quality of the order. Gross misdescription of the statute by the lower Court and the vague findings reflect on its utter lack of care and application of mind in passing a judicial order. The Courts generally and at primary level in particular should be conscious of the fact that the orders passed by them are subjected to scrutiny not only by the superior Courts but also by the lawyers and litigant public. If blunders such as these are committed, the reputation of the Courts will be lowered in public esteem. Such orders are not expected from judicial officers who are perceived to be well trained by the Judicial Academies. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order of the lower Court is set aside and I.A.No.176 of 2012 is allowed and, consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.1829 of 2012 filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.