JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Plaintiff-United Church of Northern India Trust Association (UCNITA) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 04.06.2003 passed by the trial Court. 2. The petitioner appointed Clarance Bansi Lal as its general attorney with power to him to appoint sub-attorney. Accordingly, Bansi Lal appointed Dalip Singh Sidhu as sub-attorney. Civil Suit no.532 of 1997 was filed by plaintiff through Dalip Singh Sidhu attorney (in fact, sub-attorney) against respondents as defendants. In the said suit, evidence of the plaintiff was led and closed in affirmative. Some evidence was also led by the defendants. On 23.08.2001, the case was adjourned to 06.09.2001 for production of power of attorney of the plaintiff and for remaining evidence of defendants. However, on 31.08.2001, Dalip Singh Sidhu by engaging another counsel for the plaintiff moved application and made statement for withdrawal of the suit. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.08.2001. 3. Plaintiff on 06.09.2001 filed Civil Suit No.725 of 2001 on the same averments as in suit no.532 of 1997. Simultaneously, the plaintiff also filed application for restoration of suit no.532 of 1997 alleging that Dalip Singh Sidhu had no power to withdraw the suit except with written authority of attorney Bansi Lal or of the parent body of the plaintiff and therefore, withdrawal of the suit by Dalip Singh Sidhu was unauthorized and he withdrew the suit in connivance with defendants by committing fraud with the plaintiff. The said application appears to have been filed on 19.09.2001. 4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 04.06.2003 dismissed the restoration application as not maintainable and dismissed the suit no.725 of 2001 as barred by Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) in view of withdrawal of the earlier suit. The said composite order was passed in the two cases because defendants had moved application for clubbing of the two cases i.e. restoration application and the subsequent suit no.725 of 2001. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to assail the said order. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file, including files of both the suits no.532 of 1997 and 725 of 2001, with their assistance. 6. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition to assail the said order. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file, including files of both the suits no.532 of 1997 and 725 of 2001, with their assistance. 6. On perusal of file of suit no.532 of 1997, fraud committed by Dalip Singh Sidhu in withdrawing the said suit is writ large. Perusal of power of attorney dated 22.11.1997, on the basis of which the suit was filed by Dalip Singh Sidhu on behalf of plaintiff, reveals that the said power of attorney was valid upto 30.06.1998 only and was, therefore, not valid on 31.08.2001 when the suit was withdrawn by him on behalf of plaintiff. In the suit file, there is another power of attorney dated 23.07.1998 Exhibit P- 14 executed by Bansi Lal in favour of Dalip Singh Sidhu. However the said power of attorney was also valid up to 23.07.1999 only. Thus on 31.08.2001, when the suit was withdrawn by Dalip Singh Sidhu, there was no valid, subsisting or effective power of attorney in his favour. Consequently, he had no authority to withdraw the suit on behalf of plaintiff. 7. In the aforesaid context, it is highly significant to notice that on 23.08.2001, the case has been adjourned to 06.09.2007 for production of power of attorney of the plaintiff as well as for remaining evidence of the defendants. It is apparent that Dalip Singh Sidhu was aware that he had no valid power of attorney on behalf of plaintiff subsisting at that time. Consequently, he played a trick with the Court as well as with the plaintiff. Dalip Singh Sidhu connived with the defendants and got the file put up on 31.08.2001 (before the next date of hearing fixed in the trial Court which was 06.09.2001) and made statement for withdrawing the suit. 8. Fraud played by Dalip Singh Sidhu does not rest here. For achieving his aim, Dalip Singh Sidhu engaged another counsel for appearance on 31.08.2001. It would depict that counsel conducting the suit since beginning would not have been ready to withdraw the suit at the instance of Dalip Singh Sidhu and, therefore, Dalip Singh Sidhu engaged services of another Advocate and made statement for withdrawing the suit. 9. For achieving his aim, Dalip Singh Sidhu engaged another counsel for appearance on 31.08.2001. It would depict that counsel conducting the suit since beginning would not have been ready to withdraw the suit at the instance of Dalip Singh Sidhu and, therefore, Dalip Singh Sidhu engaged services of another Advocate and made statement for withdrawing the suit. 9. It thus becomes evident that Dalip Singh Sidhu had no authority to withdraw the suit no.532 of 1997 when he withdraw it on 31.08.2001 and he withdraw the suit by playing fraud with plaintiff as well as with Court. Consequently, the said withdrawal of suit being null and void ab initio, the suit deserves to be restored. Observation of the trial Court in impugned order that the restoration application does not lie and only separate suit would lie on the ground that previous suit was withdrawn fraudulently, cannot be accepted. When there was no valid withdrawal of the suit, restoration application would certainly be maintainable and the Court has inherent power under Section 151 CPC to restore the suit which was got dismissed as withdrawn by playing fraud on plaintiff as well as on the Court. Consequently, impugned order of the trial Court dismissing the restoration application is illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error and the suit no.532 of 1997 deserves to be restored. 10. Since the earlier suit no.532 of 1997 is being restored, impugned order qua dismissal of subsequent suit no.725 of 2001 does not require any interference subject to clarification that the same shall have no bearing on merits of suit no.532 of 1997. 11. Resultantly, instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order passed by the trial is modified. Restoration application, filed by plaintiff-petitioner for restoration of suit no.532 of 1997, is allowed and the said suit is restored to the files of the trial Court at the same stage at which it was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.08.2001. Files of both the suits be sent back to the trial Court. Parties are directed to appear there on 09.09.2013 in suit no.532 of 1997 for further proceedings in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------