Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani vs Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13943­13944 OF 2020)

YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13079­13080 OF 2020)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13943­13944 of

2020, filed by Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani, challenge the

final judgment and order dated 14th February 2020, passed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Singh Date: 2023.04.25 13:39:08 IST by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Reason: 1 Application (for condonation of delay) No. 2 of 2018 in

R/Second Appeal No. 238 of 2015 with Misc. Civil

Application (for Review) No. 1 of 2018 in R/Second Appeal

No. 238 of 2015, whereby the High Court passed strictures

against the appellant­Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani and

recalled its order dated 11th September 2017, thereby

restoring the aforesaid Second Appeal to its original number

and status.

3. Aggrieved by the adverse remarks made by the High

Court in its judgment, appellant ­ Yogesh Navinchandra

Ravani has preferred these appeals so as to have those

remarks expunged.

4. Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13079­13080 of 2020

have been filed by Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar against the

same impugned judgment and order as above, albeit the

challenge here is against the restoration of Second Appeal to

its original number and status and the costs imposed upon

the appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar.

2

5. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are

as under :

5.1 One Jesangbhai Kachrabhai Parmar (hereinafter

referred to as “original plaintiff”) had instituted a suit,

bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2015 (Old No.165/2001),

before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana,

challenging the sale deed dated 14 th September 2000

executed by one Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary in favour

of one Sureshbhai Hirabhai Chaudhary with respect to the

suit property.

5.2 The said suit came to be dismissed by the 7 th Additional

Civil Judge, Mehsana, vide judgment and decree dated 12 th

June 2008. It is pertinent to note that the original plaintiff

had expired on 31st December 2006, i.e. during the pendency

of the said suit and his Legal Representatives (“LRs” for

short) had been brought on record in the said proceedings.

5.3 A first appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 77 of

2008, was preferred by the LRs of the original plaintiff

3 including the appellant­ Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, being

the son of the original plaintiff before the 4 th Additional

District Judge, Mehsana, which too came to be dismissed,

vide judgment and order dated 23 rd July 2015.

5.4 Thereafter, a Second Appeal, being Regular Second

Appeal No. 238 of 2015 was preferred before the High Court

by the LRs of the original plaintiff, including the appellant­

Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. It is pertinent to note that the

Second Appeal, which displayed all the LRs of the plaintiff as

appellants, was preferred by one Vitthalbhai Maganbhai

Parmar, who was the Power of Attorney holder under a power

of attorney executed by the original plaintiff on 4 th January

2001, prior to his death. Another Power of Attorney dated

20th November 2012, had also been executed in his favour by

the appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. Thus, Lalitbhai

Jesangbhai Parmar was the power of attorney holder only for

the appellant­ Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, and not for the

other LRs of the original plaintiff on whose behalf the

4 aforesaid Second Appeal had been preferred. Crucially, the

other LRs of the original plaintiff had not signed any

Vakalatnama to prefer the aforesaid Second Appeal.

5.5 The registry of the High Court, recognizing the

aforementioned discrepancy, raised office objections as to

whether the Vakalatnama had been signed by all the

appellants or not.

5.6 In spite of repeated opportunities, these objections were

not removed, and the aforesaid Second Appeal came to be

dismissed on 27th November 2015, for non­removal of office

objections. Thereafter, an application being Miscellaneous

Civil Application No. 894 of 2016 for restoration of the

Second Appeal was filed wherein it was stated that the Power

of Attorney holder, i.e. Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had

informed the registry of the High Court about his inability to

obtain authority letter from all the LRs of the deceased

original plaintiff, thereby requesting their transposition as

defendants.

5 5.7 The High Court, vide Order dated 9 th March 2016,

allowed the said application and restored the Second Appeal

to its original status.

5.8 Subsequently, the Second Appeal came to be admitted

by the High Court, vide its order dated 21 st April 2016, and

the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The crux of

the dispute begins hereinafter.

5.9 The appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, on coming

to know about the filing of the aforesaid Second Appeal by

his Power of Attorney holder­Vithalbhai, cancelled the Power

of Attorney, vide Public Notice dated 20th June 2017, since

the aforesaid Second Appeal had been preferred without his

knowledge or instruction. Pursuant to the cancellation of the

Power of Attorney, appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar

engaged appellant­Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani, an

advocate, to file a pursis for withdrawal of the Second Appeal

and allied civil applications.

5.10 The High Court, vide order dated 11 th September 2017,

6 took on record the aforesaid pursis and permitted withdrawal

of the Second Appeal.

5.11 However, even after cancellation of the Power of

Attorney executed in favour of Vitthalbhai Maganbhai

Parmar, he filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 before

the High Court for review of its order dated 11 th September

2017 and consequent restoration of the Second Appeal, as

well as Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2018 seeking

condonation of delay.

5.12 The High Court, vide impugned judgment and order

dated 14th February 2020, allowed the aforesaid applications,

thereby restoring the Second Appeal to its original number

and status. Additionally, costs were imposed upon the

appellant– Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar and strictures were

passed against the appellant­Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani

for his conduct as advocate of Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar,

while seeking withdrawal of the Second Appeal. Hence, the

present appeals.

7

6. We have heard Mr. Harin Raval, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Divya Anand

and Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

7. Mr. Raval submits that the very application for review of

the order dated 11th September 2017, at the behest of the so­

called Power of Attorney Holder Vitthalbhai Maganbhai

Parmar, was not maintainable. It is submitted that the

Power of Attorney in favour of the said Vitthalbhai

Maganbhai Parmar stood cancelled vide Public Notice dated

20th June, 2017. It is submitted that the application for

review, filed using the earlier Power of Attorney of original

plaintiff dated 4th January 2001 could not have been filed,

inasmuch as, on the death of the original plaintiff, the Power

of Attorney Holder Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had no

authority to continue with the proceedings. Learned counsel

submitted that unless a fresh Power of Attorney by the legal

heirs of the deceased original plaintiff was executed, he could

8 not have continued with the proceedings. It is further

submitted that once the appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai

Parmar had filed an application for transposing of the other

legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff as defendants

and once the High Court, having allowed the said application

vide Order dated 9th March 2016, he became the dominus

litis.

8. It is submitted that the strictures passed by the High

Court against the appellant­Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani,

who was only a lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant­

Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, were totally unwarranted and

uncalled for.

9. The respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have filed their reply, stating

therein that they had not executed any Power of Attorney in

favour of said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar. It is submitted

that they also did not intend to challenge the Order dated

23rd July 2015, passed by the 4 th Additional District Judge,

Mehsana, dismissing the First Appeal, viz. Regular Civil

9 Appeal No.77 of 2008 and, as such, the application filed by

said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar for restoration of the

Second Appeal was not tenable.

10. From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that

Second Appeal No.238 of 2015 was filed on behalf of all the

legal heirs of the original plaintiff by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai

Parmar, claiming to be the Power of Attorney Holder under

Power of Attorney executed by the original plaintiff on 4 th

January 2001. Another Power of Attorney dated 20 th

November 2012 was executed in favour of said Vitthalbhai

Maganbhai Parmar by the appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai

Parmar. It is, thus, clear that after the death of the original

plaintiff on 31st December 2006, the said Power of Attorney

dated 4th January 2001 executed by him in favour of

Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar ceased to have any effect.

Though another Power of Attorney was executed in favour of

said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, it was executed only by

the appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. As such,

10 Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had no right to file appeal on

behalf of the other legal heirs.

11. The Registry of the High Court, noticing that the

Vakalatnama was not signed by all the appellants, had raised

office objections. On non­removal of the office­objections, the

Second Appeal came to be dismissed on 27 th November 2015.

Thereafter, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 894 of 2016

came to be filed for restoration of the Second Appeal. The

said application also came to be filed by said Vitthalbhai

Maganbhai Parmar. It will be relevant to note the averments

made by said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar in the said

application, which read thus:

“3. The applicants state that an office objection was raised by the Registry as regards non­production of power of attorney or authority letter on behalf of all the heirs of deceased plaintiff authorizing the deponent to prefer the second appeal. The applicant state that the deponent had informed the Registry about inability to obtain the authority letter of all the heirs of the deceased plaintiff and requested to permit their transposition as defendants.

11 The applicants submit that the applicants were under a bona fide impression that the same shall be allowed and the appeal shall be listed by the Registry before the Hon’ble Court for admission hearing in due course. …”

12. It appears that the High Court, vide Order dated 9 th

March 2016, restored the Second Appeal to its original

status.

13. It appears that, vide the Office Endorsement dated 13 th

April 2016, the draft amendment and fresh title with names

were accepted and, as such, office objection came to be

removed.

14. It would further appear from the record that an

application for Draft Amendment came to be filed by

Nanavati & Company, Advocate for the appellants in Second

Appeal No.238 of 2015. It will be relevant to refer to the

same, which reads thus:

“The applicant prays to make amendment in the memorandum of petition in the above matter. The applicant submits that due to bona fide

12 mistake the names of all the plaintiffs were mentioned in the title (appellant side) in the above mentioned second appeal. The applicant submits that only one of the legal heirs­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar through Power of Attorney Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar is desirous of pursuing the legal remedy.

Therefore, I humbly request this Hon’ble Court to substitute the title of the memorandum of appeal with a new title provided herewith.”

15. Subsequently, a notorised pursis dated 19 th July 2017

came to be filed by appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar,

stating therein that, on account of transposition of the other

appellants, he was the sole appellant and he wanted to

withdraw the Second Appeal. As such, vide order dated 11 th

September 2017, the High Court permitted the withdrawal of

the Second Appeal, and the Second Appeal stood dismissed

as withdrawn.

16. It could thus be seen that, since Vitthalbhai Maganbhai

Parmar was having Power of Attorney on behalf of the

13 appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, the appeal could

have been filed only on his behalf. Appellant­Lalitbhai

Jesangbhai Parmar had cancelled the Power of Attorney

issued in favour of Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar on 20 th

June 2017, by issuing a Public Notice in daily newspaper,

namely, ‘Sandesh’ on 21st June, 2017. As such, Vitthalbhai

Maganbhai Parmar had no authority in law to continue with

the Second Appeal.

17. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Civil

Application No.1 of 2018 (for restoration) filed by said

Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar on 11th October 2018 itself

was not tenable, inasmuch as the Power of Attorney executed

in his favour by appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar on

20th November 2012 stood subsequently cancelled on 20 th

June 2017 by a issuing Public Notice.

18. We, therefore, find that, by the impugned judgment, an

anomalous situation has arisen where the appellant­Lalitbhai

Jesangbhai Parmar, who does not desire to prosecute the

14 Second Appeal, would be forced to pursue his appeal.

Similarly, the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff,

who also do not want to continue with the proceedings,

would be forced to continue with the litigation.

19. As discussed herein above, after the transposition of the

other LRs was allowed, appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai

Parmar was the sole appellant. As such, in his position as

dominus litis, he was very well within his right to withdraw

the Second Appeal. After the withdrawal of the Second

Appeal by appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, an

application for restoration, at the behest of the Power of

Attorney Holder, whose Power of Attorney stood cancelled,

was not at all tenable.

20. In any case, we find that the observations made by the

High Court against appellant­Yogesh were totally

unwarranted and uncalled for.

21. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court is not

15 sustainable in law. The same is quashed and aside.

22. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.

23. For the reasons stated, I.A. No.129619 of 2020 for

deletion of respondent No.4 is allowed. All pending

applications shall stand disposed of. No costs.

…….........................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

…….........................J. [VIKRAM NATH] NEW DELHI;

APRIL 25, 2023

16