Single judge dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to quash an eviction petition, holding there was no material to prove the power of attorney holder was of unsound mind, thus Order VII Rule 11 CPC was not attracted and no patent error existed.
The civil revision petition is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5579 of 2012
DATE: 01.03.2013
Between: M/s. Gautam Bhavan …Petitioner And Smt. Sakuntala and another. …Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5579 of 2012
O R D E R:
The revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C.C.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam. The said petition was filed for eviction by the 1st respondent herein through her General Power of Attorney-holder by name Sandhya Rani Sahu.
While the trial is in progress, the revision petitioner/respondent in R.C.C.No.10 of 2010 filed I.A.No.369 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the RCC stating that the petition itself was not maintainable since the petitioner was of unsound mind and therefore execution of power of attorney was not legally permissible. The Court below did not accept the said contention and accordingly, dismissed I.A.No.369 of 2012 by order dated 10.10.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that according to the respondent herein/eviction petitioner the power of attorney was executed by her as she is 85 year old and is not in a position to move. Though it is stated that her memory has also faded, there is absolutely no material to show that she is of unsound mind. In fact the allegation in I.A.No.369 of 2012 that she is of unsound mind has been categorically denied in the counter. Therefore, Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is not attracted and the Court below has rightly declined the prayer in I.A.No.369 of 2012 to reject the eviction petition.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order under Revision which does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law warrants no interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
__________________ G. Rohini,J
Date:01.03.2013 KLP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in rejecting an application to set aside an eviction petition on the ground that the petitioner is of unsound mind.
Whether there is sufficient material to sustain an allegation of unsound mind to invalidate a General Power of Attorney for eviction purposes.
Whether the present revision petition warrants interference regarding the maintainability of the eviction petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Gautam Bhavan
Smt. Sakuntala
Another
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
