JUDGMENT AND ORDER N. Chaudhury, J. By judgment and decree dated 12.11.2002 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati decreed Title Suit No.1 of 2001 in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 preferred two separate appeals before this Court and they are numbered as RFA No.4 of 2003 and RFA No.38 of 2003 respectively. Both these appeals being directed by a common judgment and decree, they are taken to be together for hearing. 2. Before the facts involved in these cases are discussed, it is necessary to note here that during pendency of the appeal defendant No.1 of this suit, Kamakhya Prasad Das died on 15.03.2015 and thereupon, his sole legal heir Dilip Kumar Das has been substituted. This is how he has stepped into the shoes of the appellant in RFA No.4 of 2003 and as proforma respondent No.2 in RFA No. 38 of 2003. 3. The plaintiff Ashok Kumar Gangwal instituted Title Suit No.1 of 2001 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati on 02.01.2001 for declaration of his right, title, interest, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction. According to him the dealership license of petrol and diesel was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, the defendant No.3 herein on 04.10.1995 under the quota of freedom fighter. Due to paucity of fund he was not in a position to start the business and so entered into contract jointly with the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 on 21.04.1996, whereby the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.2 were authorised to purchase the land, develop the same and to make necessary infrastructure for the purpose of running a patrol pump on the basis of license granted to the plaintiff by the proforma defendant No.3. A deed of agreement was executed on 21.04.1996 with defendant No.1 as the first party and the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 as the second party. It was agreed to between them that the second party would select the place of pump station within the area of operation prescribed in dealership license of the defendant No.1 and there upon purchase land from the owner on due consideration. It was agreed to between them that the second party would select the place of pump station within the area of operation prescribed in dealership license of the defendant No.1 and there upon purchase land from the owner on due consideration. They would develop the land and raise structure for pump station, counter office room, staff quarter etc required for the purpose of running the business and the defendant No.1 would only get Rs.9,000/- per month as fixed hire charges for using his dealership license. The agreement would continue for a period of 25 years. It was further mentioned that in case any one of the parties wanted to withdraw from the agreement he would be liable to compensate others suitably. Accordingly, pursuant to agreement dated 21.04.1996 the defendant No.1 executed one irrevocable general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 jointly authorised them to run the business by doing all the needful. It is stated that pursuant to agreement and the power of attorney the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 purchased 2B 3K 1L land covered by Dag No. 258, 261 of K.P. Patta No.8, 88 and Dag No.256/257 of K.P. Patta No.236 at village Sontala under Chayani Circle Mouza, Palasbari, Kamrup at valuable consideration. It was leased out to the defendant No.1 on 01.10.1996 for a period of 25 years authorising him to execute special tenancy agreement with proforma defendant No.3 for running the dealership. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 thereafter established the petrol pump under the name and style of M/s Kamakhya Service Centre and started running the same since May, 1997. They continued paying hire charges to the defendant No.1 up to October 2000 @ Rs.9,000/- per month. In the meantime, the defendant No.1 wanted to enhance the hire charges from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and also made a demand of Rs.6,00,000/- as advance hire charges which the plaintiff did not agree. Taking this opportunity, the defendant No.2 entered into collusion with the defendant no.1 and agreed to make payment of Rs.10,000/- as monthly hire charge and Rs.2,00,000/- as advance payment. Pursuant to such secret agreement between the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 behind the back of the plaintiff, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 deteriorated. Taking this opportunity, the defendant No.2 entered into collusion with the defendant no.1 and agreed to make payment of Rs.10,000/- as monthly hire charge and Rs.2,00,000/- as advance payment. Pursuant to such secret agreement between the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 behind the back of the plaintiff, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 deteriorated. In the meantime, the officials of the Weights & Measurement Department visited the petrol pump and found out discrepancy in the weighing scale for which seized the pump machine. The defendant No.1 kept the seizure list with him for which the plaintiff could not reopen the pump station and thus, the petrol pump remained closed. Taking advantage of the situation the defendant No.1 sent notice to the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 to show cause as to why authority given to them should not be revoked. Upon receipt of the notice the plaintiff gave reply to the defendant No.1 asking him not to take such illegal action and not to revoke the authority. The defendant No.1 also informed that the matter would be brought to the notice of defendant No.3 about entering into partnership with the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 but even thereafter the defendant No.1 by notice dated 28.11.2000 revoked the authority granted to the plaintiff vide registered deed of revocation No.4644 dated 26.12.2000. According to the plaintiff the agreement dated 21.04.1996 has still been in force and so he is entitled to run the dealership on the basis of the agreement. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted (Oral) : (i) For a decree for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession of the plaintiff with respect to the pump station as described in the schedule annexed herewith. (ii) For a decree for declaration of right, title, interest of the plaintiff to run the pump station in the name of M/s. Kamakhya Service Centre on the suit premises by the dealership license of the defendant No.1 vide letter No.R/2250 219 dated 04.10.1995 on the basis of the deed of agreement dated 21.04.1996 and the deed of irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 22.04.1996. (iii) For a decree for cancellation of the deed of revocation No.4644 dated 2612.2000 exceeds by defendant No.1 revoking the deed of power of Attorney No.2248/96 dated 22.04.1996. (iv) For permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 & 2 restraining them, their men, agents, servants, employees, attorneys etc. (iii) For a decree for cancellation of the deed of revocation No.4644 dated 2612.2000 exceeds by defendant No.1 revoking the deed of power of Attorney No.2248/96 dated 22.04.1996. (iv) For permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 & 2 restraining them, their men, agents, servants, employees, attorneys etc. to run the business of pump station under the name and style of M/s Kamakhya Service Centre on the suit premises on the basis of the dealership license in favour of the defendant No.1 granted by proforma defendant No.3 vide letter No.R/2250/219 dated 04.10.1995. (v) For a temporary injunction. (vi) For cost of the suit. (viii) For any relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is found entitled to." 4. Upon receipt of the summons defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 appeared and jointly filed written statement and a counter claim. Paragraph-19 of the written statement is the counter-claim wherein the defendants have stated their own case. it is pleaded by the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff is a freedom fighter and a senior citizen aged about 84 years and that he got the dealership license under FF category (Freedom Fighter Category) vide application dated 20.10.1994 from India Oil Corporation Ltd. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 agreed to arrange a plot of land and they wanted that some written authorisation should be given to them to that effect and accordingly both the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were jointly appointed as attorney of the plaintiff vide registered deed dated 22.04.1996. The plaintiff and the defendant No.2 thereafter gave a proposal of a plot of land on 01.10.1996 and an agreement of lease was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2, on the one hand, as lesser and the defendant No.1, on the other hand, as lessee. This is how the dealership business was commissioned. The defendant No.1 carried on a business through the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 smoothly up to the first quarter of 2000 but thereafter, there was some dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 for which they could not lift the quota for the months of June and July 2000 and consequently, defendant No.3 issued notice to the defendant No.1 on 16.08.2000 in this regard. Accordingly, on 21.08.2000 the defendant No.1 gave notice to both the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 and informed that if they failed to run the business by lifting oil regularly from the defendant No.3 the power of attorney would be cancelled. Accordingly, a meeting was called on 15.10.2000 in the residence of defendant No.1. The plaintiff did not turn up despite service of notice. The defendant No.2 came and took part in the discussion. On 20.10.2000 the officials of the Weight & Measures Department detected some illegality in the petrol pump for which the defendant No.1 was served with a warning letter from the defendant No.3 on 01.11.2000. This is why the defendant No.1 issued the show cause notice to the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 on 13.11.2000 as to why their authority should not be cancelled. The plaintiff instead of giving reply to the show-cause, he himself issued a notice through his lawyer on 28.11.2000 making some allegation against the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2, on the other hand, gave reply saying that the plaintiff kept everything secret from him and he was not aware about the activities on the petrol pump. Thus, the plaintiff acted beyond the scope of his authority and this is why by executing deed of revocation on 26.12.2000 power of attorney was revoked and he was given notice to settle the account and to hand over all documents etc. The plaintiff did not comply with the notice and so he has no right, title and interest to the business. It is also alleged that the agreement dated 21.04.1996 is fraudulently created by the plaintiff with the sole intention to cause harm to the defendant No.1 and the deed should be adjudged as illegal etc. With these statements on facts, it was prayed that declaring right, title and interest of the defendant No.1 upon the business of the retail outlet and that deed agreement dated 21.04.1996 is void ab initio and the plaintiff has acted beyond the scope of his authority and no locus standi to restrict the business of the defendant No.1 etc. The plaintiff by filing written statement to the counter-claim denied the counter-claim and the prayed that the counter-claim be dismissed with cost. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court framed as many as 12 issues, however, subsequently on 12.11.2002 two more additional issues were also framed. The plaintiff by filing written statement to the counter-claim denied the counter-claim and the prayed that the counter-claim be dismissed with cost. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Court framed as many as 12 issues, however, subsequently on 12.11.2002 two more additional issues were also framed. All these issues are quoted below: "(1) Whether the defendant No.1 has right, title and interest in respect of the business of his retail suit land, the dealership of which was granted by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd? (2) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were the appointed attorneys/agents of the defendant No.1? (3) Whether the plaintiff has acted beyond the scope of his authority and exceeded his power so granted by the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff committed unlawful activities in the pump? (4) Whether the plaintiff has any locus standi to restrict the business of the defendant No.1 and acquired any right to sue? (5) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in law and facts? (6) Whether the status and position of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is the same? (7) Whether the plaintiff has fraudulently erected the deed of agreement dated 21.04.1996? (8) Whether the authority seized the pump on 20.10.2000 and thereafter the same was released on payment of fine by the defendant No.1? (9) Whether the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. issued letter for non functioning of the pump? (10) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 has any dispute causing serious consequence to the defendant No.1? (11) Whether the defendants are entitled to get relief as prayed for? (12) To what relief or reliefs the parties are entitled? Additional Issues: (1) Whether the defendant No.1 on 21.04.1996 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 in respect of Kamakhya Service Centre with condition that the defendant No.1 will get Rs.9,000/- per month as hire charges from the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 for the running the same under the dealership license of the defendant No.1? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for?" 6. In course of trial plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself and the defendant examined two witnesses. The defendant No. 1 was examined as D.W.1 and one Santi Ram Das was examined as D.W.2. 7. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for?" 6. In course of trial plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself and the defendant examined two witnesses. The defendant No. 1 was examined as D.W.1 and one Santi Ram Das was examined as D.W.2. 7. In course of trial the plaintiff while examining himself as P.W.1 has exhibited as many as 15 documents i.e. Exhibits-A to O. Exhibit-A is the irrevocable general power of attorney dated 22.04.1996, Exhibit-B is the agreement dated 21.04.1996, Exhibit-C is the money receipt of Rs.4,1000/- and money receipt of Rs.9,000/- is exhibited as Exhibit-D. Two money receipts of Rs.8,000/- each have been exhibited as Exhibit-E & Exhibit F respectively to show payment of money to the defendant No.1. Exhibit-G is the sale deed dated 17.07.1996 whereby the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 purchased land measuring 1 Bigha 0 Katha 5 Lechas. Exhibit-H is another sale deed dated 18.07.1996 whereby the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 jointly purchased land measuring 1, K, 0, B, 6 Lechas. The aforesaid land measuring 2 Bigha 3 Katha 1 Lechas was leased out to the defendant No.1 by Exhibit-I lease dead dated 01.10.1996. Exhibit-J is a notice through advocate A.K. Jain addressed to the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 asking them to show-cause as to why the power of attorney executed by the defendant No.1 on 26.12.2000 should not be revoked and as to why account should not be settled. Exhibit-K is another notice by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff which is a reply to notice dated 20.11.2000 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 and the said notice dated 20.11.2000 has been exhibited as Exhibit-L. By Exhibit-L the plaintiff has accused the defendant No.1 of suppressing terms of the letter intent issued by the Defendant No.3 and violation thereof by forming partnership with the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. Exhibit-M is electricity bill of the petrol pump showing that it was addressed to the plaintiff and Exhibit-N is the audit report by the Chartered accountant. Exhibit-O is another audit report. 8. In his examination-in-chief the plaintiff has restated the case pleaded in the plaint and has asserted that the defendant No.1 acted illegally in revoking the power of attorney of the plaintiff and for contemplating agreement with the defendant No.2 to continue with the business. He asserted that the agreement dated 21.04.1996 still subsisted. Exhibit-O is another audit report. 8. In his examination-in-chief the plaintiff has restated the case pleaded in the plaint and has asserted that the defendant No.1 acted illegally in revoking the power of attorney of the plaintiff and for contemplating agreement with the defendant No.2 to continue with the business. He asserted that the agreement dated 21.04.1996 still subsisted. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for permanent injunction for restraining defendant No.1 from revoking his power of attorney. The defendant No.1, on the other hand, examined himself as D.W.1 and restated his own case in Paragraph-19 of the written statement. He Exhibited-1 to 7 documents. Exhibit-1 is the letter of intent issued by the defendant No.3 to the plaintiff, inter alia, on the condition that he would operate the dealership personally full time. It was also mentioned therein that it was merely a letter of intent and that agreement would follow. Exhibit-2 is the notice issued to the defendant No.1 by the Indian Oil Corporation pointing out that oil for the month of June and July, 2000 was not lifted. Exhibit-3 is yet another notice to the defendant No.1 by the defendant No.3 alleging of nonfunctioning of the petrol pump. Exhibit-3 is the seizure list issued by Weights and Measurement Department and Exhibit-4(1) is a letter by defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 asking him to run the business. Exhibit-4 (2) is the notice to both the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 to be present in meeting held on 15.10.2000 for discussing about the retail out let and Exhibit-5 is the show cause notice issued by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 asking them to show cause as to why the power of attorney should not be revoked. Exhibit-6(1) is the notice given to the defendant No.1 by pleader of the plaintiff asking to come to a settlement for the loss sustained by the plaintiff in running the petrol pump. Exhibit 6(2) is the reply given by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff against notice received by him. Exhibit-7 is the notice whereby plaintiff and the defendant No.2 was informed by the advocate of the defendant No.1 that the power of attorney has already been revoked. 9. Exhibit 6(2) is the reply given by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff against notice received by him. Exhibit-7 is the notice whereby plaintiff and the defendant No.2 was informed by the advocate of the defendant No.1 that the power of attorney has already been revoked. 9. Upon perusal of the aforesaid evidence led by the parties the learned trial court held that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 are co-sharers of the business and they are not constituted attorney. Under such circumstances, revoking of the power of attorney dated 26.12.2000 is liable to be cancelled and it is accordingly canceled. The learned court found that pursuant to agreement dated 21.04.1996 the defendant No.1 handed over the business to the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 and accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for. The learned trial court, therefore, canceled the deed of revocation dated 26.12.2000 and held that the plaintiff has right to run the business of retail out let of M/s Kamakhya Service Centre under the dealership license of the defendant No.1 and thus, the counter claim was also partly decreed. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present second appeal. 10. I have heard Ms. T. Goswami and Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant in RFA No.4 of 2003 and Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant in RFA No. 38 of 2003. I have also heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 in both the cases including learned Standing Counsel of the India Oil Corporation Ltd appearing for respondent No.3 in both the cases. 11. The plaintiff by exhibiting Exhibit-L notice dated 20.11.2000 accused that the defendant No.1 suppressed terms and conditions of the license and entered into partnership with him and one Ajit Kumar Jain. This is why irrevocable power of attorney was granted to the plaintiff on 22.04.1996 for 25 years from letter of allotment dated 04.10.1995. It is claimed that the defendant No.1 is not entitled to induct any partner with him in running the business of petrol pump. The plaintiff charged the defendant No.1 saying that the defendant No.1 was supposed to operate the pump personally full time with written undertaking with effect that he has not assigned or operate with the same to any person as term of license. The plaintiff charged the defendant No.1 saying that the defendant No.1 was supposed to operate the pump personally full time with written undertaking with effect that he has not assigned or operate with the same to any person as term of license. So, he is guilty of committing breach of the terms of appointment. The plaintiff by Exhibit-K invited the defendant No.1 to come to a settlement for loss sustained by him in running the petrol pump failing which he would disclose to the IOCL the wrong committed by the defendant No.1 as to breach of condition of the license with request to the Indian Oil Corporation to cancel license. By exhibiting Exhibit-B agreement dated 21.04.1996 plaintiff sought to establish that the defendant No.1 entered into contract with the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 by which the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were authorised to start and run the business and the defendant No.1 was entitled to get only Rs.9,000/- per month as hire charges. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 ran the business on the basis of license of defendant No.1. Exhibit-L shows that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 entered into a partnership with the defendant No.1 for the purpose of running the business on the condition that the defendant No.1 would be a sleeping partner by providing his license only, whereas the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 would establish and run the business for 25 years. Having set up the pleadings and the evidence to that effect the plaintiff made a prayer that he is entitled to declaration of his right, title and interest to the business with consequential relief by prohibitory injunction against defendants No.1 & 2. The defendant No.1 wanted to say that this agreement dated 21.04.1996 was a fraudulent document but virtually failed to establish that the same was fraudulent and this is why the learned trial court did not find favour with such pleadings of the defendant No.1. The learned trial court accepted the proposition that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 were the hirer and the defendant No.1 was only entitled to Rs.9,000/- per month as hirer charge. Having noted the pleadings and evidence of the parties the question arises as to whether parties are entitled to any relief as claimed by them either in the plaint or in the counter-claim. 12. Having noted the pleadings and evidence of the parties the question arises as to whether parties are entitled to any relief as claimed by them either in the plaint or in the counter-claim. 12. If the version of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 had no right or authority to enter into partnership with anybody in regard to business of dealership because of provisions of the letter of appellant is to be accepted then the very agreement dated 21.04.1996 would sail into rough weather. The defendant No.3 neither contested the suit before the learned trial court nor did it file any written statement and so the suit proceeded ex parte against the defendant No.3. If it is a public policy of the defendant No.3 not to permit the dealer to enter into partnership with any one more particularly when the dealership was issued under Freedom Fighter Quota in that event the legality and authority of Exhibit-B itself becomes questionable. The Exhibit-B in that event may be hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Apart from that the plaintiff himself disclosed in Exhibit-B that he has a partnership with the defendant No.2 for running Kamakhya Service Centre on the basis of the license of the defendant No.1, in that event admittedly he cannot claim absolute right, title and interest. His right, title and interest, if there be any, has to be jointly with defendant No.2. On the other hand, in Paragraph-B of the plaint he has made accusation that the defendant No.1 secretly entered into agreement with the defendant No.2 for the purpose of a fresh partnership between them. But after having so pleaded, no prayer has been made for declaring such transaction as invalid and /or invalid as consequential relief in regard thereto. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them, it has come to light that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 jointly entered into contract with the defendant No.1 for running dealership in breach of the terms and conditions of license as claimed by the plaintiff in Exhibit-L adduced by him. For that purpose, it was necessary for both the parties to produce the original license or the agreement between the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 for arriving at a decision in this regard. For that purpose, it was necessary for both the parties to produce the original license or the agreement between the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 for arriving at a decision in this regard. The pivotal question becomes whether the contract between the defendant No.1 on the one hand and the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 on the other hand is void in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and that can be adjudged only if the agreement between the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 is produced. If the contract i.e. Exhibit-B itself becomes void than the plaintiff will automatically become dis entitled to any relief. Similarly, the defendant No.2 also will not get any relief from the counter-claim. That being the position this Court feels that production of the original agreement between the defendant No.1 and 3 is required for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial court to decide the issue as follows: Whether the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 on one side and the defendant No.1 on the other side is void? The learned trial court shall afford adequate opportunity to both sides to place their full defence in accordance with law. The learned Standing counsel on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. submits that the suit was instituted prior to 2002 amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure order and order for ex parte hearing was passed against the defendant No.3 for which he could not place his defense. Defendant No.3 shall be permitted to file written statement if so advised. The parties shall appear before the learned trial court on 22.06.2015 to obtain necessary order. In the meantime, records shall be transmitted positively to the learned trial court by the Registry of this Court. 13. No order as to costs.