Jagdish Singh Rehal Vs Awtar Singh Rehal and Others

The present revision pe��on has been filed by defendant No.1 of Civil Suit No. 4196 of 2018 �tled ‘Awtar Singh Rehal vs. Jagdish Singh Rehal’, pending before Ld. learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/NRI Court, Jalandhar. He has assailed the order dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-11), passed by the trial court, whereby his applica�on under Sec�on 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking discarding of the alleged power of a:orney/vakalatnama, wri:en statement, reply to stay applica�on and subsequent replies filed through Ms. Monika, Advocate, was dismissed. 2. Briefly no�ced, the pe��oner–defendant No.1 moved an applica�on before the trial Court contending that he had never engaged Ms. Monika, Advocate to represent him in the suit and had not signed the power of a:orney, wri:en statement or replies filed in the proceedings. It was alleged that the signatures appearing on those documents were forged and that the said counsel had appeared without his authoriza�on. On this basis, a prayer was made that the power of a:orney/vakalatnama and pleadings filed on his behalf be discarded.

¶15

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-2415-2026

¶17

The applica�on was contested by the other par�es, who submi:ed that the applica�on had been moved only with an inten�on to delay the proceedings. It was pointed out that the counsel in ques�on had been represen�ng the pe��oner since the year 2018 and had ac�vely par�cipated in the proceedings, including cross-examina�on of witnesses on behalf of the pe��oner.

¶18

ABer hearing the par�es and examining the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the applica�on observing that the power of a:orney and wri:en statement had been filed on behalf of the pe��oner as far back as 23.07.2018, and thereaBer, the counsel con�nued to represent him throughout the proceedings. The Court also no�ced that the pe��oner himself had appeared before the Court as a witness on 27.05.2024, which clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the proceedings. The trial Court further observed that despite such knowledge, the present applica�on was filed only on 03.10.2025, without any plausible explana�on for the inordinate delay. The Court also recorded that the pe��oner had neither sought comparison of the alleged forged signatures with his admi:ed signatures nor ini�ated any civil or criminal proceedings against the counsel, who allegedly represented him without authority. On these grounds, the applica�on was dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the pe��oner submits that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the allega�on of forgery and ought to have ordered an inquiry before rejec�ng the applica�on.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the pe��oner and have perused the paper-book.

¶21

From the record, it is evident that the counsel in ques�on had been represen�ng the pe��oner since 2018, had filed wri:en statement and other pleadings on his behalf and had also cross-examined witnesses of the plain�ff. The proceedings thereaBer con�nued for several years and the case had reached the stage of rebu:al evidence.

¶22

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CR-2415-2026

¶24

Significantly, the pe��oner himself appeared before the Court on 27.05.2024 and par�cipated in the proceedings. Despite being aware of the pendency and progress of the case, he chose to file the present applica�on only on 03.10.2025, i.e. aBer a lapse of several years. The belated challenge to the authority of counsel, without any suppor�ng material, clearly indicates that the applica�on was moved with an oblique mo�ve.

¶25

It is equally noteworthy that the pe��oner did not take any steps to substan�ate the allega�on of forgery. No applica�on for comparison of signatures by a handwri�ng expert was moved and no criminal complaint or civil ac�on was ini�ated against the concerned counsel. In the absence of any such steps, the bald allega�on of forgery made at a highly belated stage cannot be accepted.

¶26

The conduct of the pe��oner, therefore, clearly suggests that the present applica�on was filed only to retract the stand already taken in the wri:en statement and to delay the proceedings of the suit, which had reached an advanced stage. Such conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of Court and cannot be encouraged.

¶27

It is well se:led that the scope of revisional jurisdic�on under Sec�on 115 CPC is well se:led and circumscribed. The High Court does not func�on as an appellate forum over orders passed by subordinate Courts. Its jurisdic�on is essen�ally supervisory and is confined to correc�ng jurisdic�onal errors. Interference is jus�fied only where the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdic�on not vested in it by law, has failed to exercise jurisdic�on so vested, or has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of such jurisdic�on. The revisional Court is, therefore, concerned with the legality and jurisdic�onal propriety of the impugned order and cannot re-assess the evidence or subs�tute its own view merely because another view on the facts may be possible.

¶28

Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court

¶29

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.13 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CR-2415-2026

¶31

finds that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is based upon proper apprecia�on of the material available on record. No jurisdic�onal error, illegality or material irregularity has been pointed out which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdic�on.

¶32

On the contrary, the applica�on filed by the pe��oner appears to be a belated a:empt to derail the proceedings of the suit. Courts cannot permit li�gants to resile from their own pleadings aBer several years of par�cipa�on in the proceedings, par�cularly when such a plea is unsupported by any credible material.

¶33