YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI versus NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 25-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI
v.
NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3114-3115 of 2023)
APRIL 25, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Power of attorney: Role of power of attorney holder –
Application for restoration, at the behest of the power of attorney
holder, whose power of attorney stood cancelled – Tenability of –
Is not tenable – On facts, suit by original plaintiff challenging the
sale deed – Subsequently, the original plaintiff died in 2006 and
his LRs brought on record – Suit dismissed by the trial court – First
appeal filed by the LRs and the appellant-son of the original
plaintiff, also dismissed – Thereafter in 2015, second appeal filed
by VM, the power of attorney holder under a power of attorney
executed by the original plaintiff, prior to his death – VM was also
appointed the power of attorney holder by the appellant – VM
represented all the LRs of the original plaintiff including the
appellant-son of the original plaintiff in the second appeal –
However, office objections raised as the earlier power of attorney
got expired with the death of the original plaintiff and there was no
Vakalatnama signed by other LRs – Non-removal of objections –
Dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court – Application
seeking restoration of the second appeal and transposition of other
LRs as defendants and the same was allowed – Later, cancellation
of the power of attorney by the appellant by public notice – Pursuant
thereto, the appellant engaged an advocate to file a pursis for the
withdrawal of the second appeal which was allowed by the High
Court – However, even after cancellation of the power of Attorney,
VM filed an application for review of the said order and consequent
restoration of the second appeal – On appeal, held: Order by the
High Court restoring the second appeal, not sustainable and is
quashed and set aside – Since VM was having power of attorney
on behalf of the appellant, the appeal could have been filed only
on his behalf – Appellant had cancelled the power of attorney issued
in favour of VM by issuing a public notice – As such, VM had no
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 280
280
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
authority in law to continue with the second appeal – After the
transposition of the other LRs was allowed, appellant 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 appellant, an application for restoration,
at the behest of the power of attorney holder, whose power of
attorney stood cancelled, was not at all tenable.
Adverse remarks – Expunction of – Adverse remarks by the
High Court – Justification of – Held: Remarks against the appellant
totally unwarranted and uncalled for.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3114-
3115 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2020 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CA No. 2 of 2018 and MCA No. 1 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3116-3117 of 2023.
Harin Raval, Sr. Adv., Anando Mukherjee, Ms. Ekta Bharati, Ms.
Shreya Bansal, Ms. Shrestha Narayan, M/s Aura & Co., Shashank
Khurana, Ms. Shalini Singh, Ms. Divya Anand, Ankit Anandraj Shah,
Kumar Aditya, Vivek Beniwal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13943-13944 of 2020,
filed by Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani, challenge the final judgment and
order dated 14th February 2020, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad in Civil 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 appellant-Yogesh
Navinchandra Ravani and recalled its order dated 11th September 2017,
thereby restoring the aforesaid Second Appeal to its original number and
status.
YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI v. NANJIBHAI
SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
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. 13079-13080 of 2020
have been filed by Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar against the same
impugned judgment and order as above, albe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.