Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Commissioner And Inspector ... on 6 January, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.944 of 2021
ORDER:-
The petitioners had been appointed as the Power of
Attorney Holders of the 1st respondent, by way of a document
dated 27.04.2019, Registered as Document No.2537 of 2019 in
the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Vizianagaram. The Power of
Attorney was given in relation to 1009.2 sq.yards of land in
Vizianagaram in Sy.No.59-1. Thereafter, petitioners are said to
have taken up steps for improving the property including
undertaking various litigations including the litigation against
Vizianagaram Municipal Corporation, by way of O.S.No.362 of
2020, before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class
(Mobile)-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.
While the suit was pending, disputes arose between the 1st
respondent and the petitioners resulting in exchange of legal
notices wherein 1st respondent is said to have cancelled the
power of attorney given to the petitioners herein.
2. Thereafter, the 1st respondent appeared before the
trial Court in O.S.No.362 of 2020 by way of an advocate and filed
I.A.No.130 of 2021 to withdraw the suit unconditionally. This
application was allowed on 05.08.2021. Aggrieved by the said
order of withdrawal, the petitioners have approached this Court
by way of the present civil revision petition.
3. Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the said order of withdrawal suffers from
various infirmities. She would draw the attention of the Court to
the two judgments cited by the trial Court and point out that the
extracts of the judgments set out in the order of the trial Court
are not found anywhere in the actual judgments. She further
submits that the 1st respondent, while the registered power of
attorney mentioned above was subsisting, could not have
appeared directly and withdrawn the suit. She contends that the
power of attorney being registered could not have been treated as
terminated until the said power of attorney has been cancelled by
way of a deed of cancellation executed by both sides and relies
upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and
the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gaddam laxmaiah
and others vs. Commissioner and Inspector General,
Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and others1.
4. Heard Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for
the 1st respondent.
5. A perusal of the power of attorney placed before this
Court shows that the said power of attorney is not a power of
attorney coupled with interest. The said power of attorney is a
simplicitor power of attorney giving authority to the petitioners to
take all steps for development and alienation of the land either
by way of sale or by way of development agreements. In the
circumstances, there would be no restraint on the respondent in
cancelling the power of attorney.
2017 (4) ALT 213 (DB)
6. The contention of Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel
for the petitioners is that the said power of attorney cannot be
cancelled unilaterally and requires the signatures of both the
petitioners and the 1st respondent. The judgment of the Division
Bench, relied upon by her, relates to a case where there is a
development agreement and a power of attorney contained in one
document and the said document is sought to be cancelled by
one party to the transaction. In such a situation, the Division
bench had taken the view that the cancellation of a registered
document such a Development Agreement-cum- General Power
of Attorney unilaterally is not permissible as such a cancellation
would cause grievous loss to the other side which had invested
on the basis of the said document. In the present case, there is
no development agreement or an agreement of sale coupled with
the power of attorney. In such a situation, the judgment of the
Division Bench would not be applicable to the present case. The
general principal of law has been that a principal who gives a
power of attorney to another person is not precluded from acting
on his own even while the power of attorney is subsisting. In
such a situation, the application filed by the 1st respondent to
unilaterally withdraw the suit cannot be treated as an
application without authority or without competence.
7. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the orders of the trial Court.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil
Revision Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 06-01-2022
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.944 of 2021
Date : 06.01.2022
RJS
