Uttarakhand High Court
CLR/100/2025 on 25 September, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
CLR No. 100 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Siddharth Sah and Mr. Vishesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. Respondent no. 1 / plaintiff filed a suit for
cancellation of five sale deeds executed in between
21.01.2025 to 17.03.2025 and also sought for permanent
injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that he has
given registered general Power of Attorney to the
defendant no. 1 / revisionist but without informing the
plaintiff five sale deeds were executed by the defendant
no. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that
plaintiff is nephew of the defendant no. 1 and he has
given general power of attorney to the defendant /
revisionist on 24.04.2015 and being power of attorney
holder of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 / revisionist
executed five sale deeds.
4. Apart from this, he submits that as per averment
made in the plaint power of attorney dated 24.04.2015
was revoked on 29.03.2025, the date after execution of
the sale deeds, therefore, there was no cause of action
for the plaintiff to institute the suit. He further submits
that suit property was undervalued and by taking all
these pleas the defendant moved an application under
Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint,
however, the same has been rejected and being
aggrieved with the same, instant revision has been
preferred.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that undisputedly, as per the plaintiff itself
registered power of attorney was revoked after
execution of the five sale deeds, therefore, for plaintiff
there was no cause of action to file suit for cancellation
of sale deeds, which were executed prior to the
revocation of power of attorney. He further argued that
total valuation of the property is approx. Rs. Nine
Crore but it was undervalued and the plaintiff valued it
only Rs. 24 lakh. He further argued that while rejecting
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, these two
important aspects have not been considered by the trial
court. In support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9472 of 2023 (V.
Ravikumar Vs. S. Kumar) 2025 INSC 343, particularly,
by place reliance to paragraph 8 and submits that if
power of attorney is revoked, after execution of sale
deed, then no cause of action will arise for institution of
suit for cancellation of sale deed.
6. I found force on the submission of the learned
counsel for the revisionist. However, all these aspects
require deliberations for which notices are required to
be issued to the respondents.
7. Respondents no. 2 to 11 are proforma
respondents, in whose favour sale deed were executed
and respondent no. 1 is the contesting respondent, who
is plaintiff of the suit, therefore, at this juncture, notice
is being issued to respondent no. 1.
8. Issue notice to respondent no. 1.
9. Steps be taken within a week.
10. List on 14.10.2025.
11. Till next date of listing, further proceedings of
O.S. No. 279 of 2025 (Anirudh Singh Vs. Anupama
Prakash and others) pending in the court of Civil Judge
(SD), Dehradun, shall remain stayed.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
25.09.2025
SKS
