Patna High Court - Orders
Mrs. Tahmina Imam @ Tahmina Punwari & Anr vs Mrs. Anis Mazid Khan & Ors on 11 April, 2014
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16724 of 2013
======================================================
Mrs. Tahmina Imam @ Tahmina Punwari & Anr
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Mrs. Anis Mazid Khan & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
3 11-04-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, who has filed I.A. No.3021 of 2014.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner no.1 alleging that in fact the Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of Ashok Kumar Thakur has already been revoked by petitioner no.1, therefore, this writ application may be treated that only petitioner no.2 has filed this writ application and not on behalf of petitioner no.1 because after revocation of the Power of Attorney, Ashok Kumar Thakur has no authority to present this writ application on behalf of petitioner no.1.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if petitioner no.1 is objecting to the Power of Attorney and the same has already been revoked, then this writ application may be treated as an application filed by petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.16724 of 2013 (3) dt.11-04-2014 2 no.2 Mrs. Shirly Imam only and petitioner no.1 may be transposed as respondent in this writ application.
4. Perused the record.
5. It appears that originally there were two petitioners, who filed this writ application through their Power of Attorney Holder, Ashok Kumar Thakur. Subsequently the petitioner no.1 filed this interlocutory application alleging that Ashok Kumar Thakur has got no authority/he is not Power of Attorney Holder of petitioner no.1 and she is not desirous of prosecuting this writ application. In view of the above facts, the petitioner no.1 is transposed as respondent no.16 in this writ application. The writ application is treated as an application filed only by Mrs. Shirly Imam.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment application was allowed in the year 1983 but because of some confusion, the amendment allowed could not be incorporated within the period prescribed under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the year 2013 the application was filed seeking permission from the court to incorporate the amendment already allowed. The court below has rejected this application by the impugned order taking a hyper technical objection. According to the learned counsel, procedural law Patna High Court CWJC No.16724 of 2013 (3) dt.11-04-2014 3 should not be incorporated so rigorously so as to defeat the interest of justice.
7. Issue notice to the respondents except the newly transposed respondent no.16, who has already appeared through the learned counsel Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha. The petitioner shall file the necessary requisites under registered post and in addition to that the petitioner shall take steps for service of notice through the counsel representing the defendants-respondents in the case, in the court below. The requisites must be filed within two weeks. Peremptory.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/-