both residents of Village Manipur, Taluka Hajipur, District Vaishali, State of Bihar, and therefore, had to prosecute the present Suit through a Power of Attorney Holder. He submitted that the original Plaintiff had infact, on becoming aware of the order of dismissal of the present Suit against Defendant No.1, immediately revoked the Power of Attorney, and appointed a new Constituted Attorney namely Mr. Santosh Vinayak Joshi as also a new Advocate. Learned Counsel pointed out that the Appellant after the original Plaintiff passed away also had appointed Mr.Santosh Vinayak Joshi as his Constituted Attorney. He submitted that the Power of Attorney granted to Mr. Santosh Vinayak Joshi was filed alongwith the present Notice of Motion. He submitted that the findings of the Learned Single Judge that the entire litigation seems to be at the instance of only the Constituted Attorney were thus ex-facie untenable. He pointed out that the same was based merely on the fact that Mr.Santosh Vinayak Joshi was also the Power of Attorney Holder of the original Plaintiff. He submitted that the fact that the original Plaintiff as also the Appellant had the same Power of Attorney Holder did not and could by any stretch of imagination mean that the litigation was being carried on at the instance of the Power of Attorney Holder. Learned Counsel took pains to point out that the present Notice of Motion was affirmed only by Mr.Santosh Vinayak Joshi and not by the Appellant, since the Appellant resided in State of Bihar and had
