Shri Z.A Guliwala, appearing in-person has challenged the order of the learned Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad passed below Application Exh. 52 in Summary Suit No. 551/2009 whereby it denied the request of impleading him as party-defendant in Summary Suit No. 551 of 2009.
Shri Guliwala fervently urged that not only he is appropriate party but is a necessary party as well.
On having examined the material on record and on duly considering his submission, there does not appear to be any reason for interference. The trial Court has noted that the so-called power of attorney has been executed on 15th March 2007 whereas, the cheque has been given to the defendant on 2nd July 2008. In other words, after the execution of the power of attorney by the third party, such cheque was given to the defendant, and therefore, the Court held that the power of attorney has not given any power and he cannot file the present application on behalf of the third party, basing his right on the power of attorney document. The Court further noted that nowhere the plaintiff stated that he has given Rs. 25,000/= to the defendant on the basis of power of attorney executed by the third party in his favour. Thus, in absence of any pleadings, the Court deemed it fit not to consider third party as a necessary party, as in absence of the third party, the suit and dispute between the parties; in the opinion of the Court, could be finally and effectively adjudicated.
No interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court has committed no error causing injustice much less grave injustice to the party. It would be worthwhile to note the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Private Limited & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3109, whereby the Court has made distinction as also clarified the concept of "necessary party" and "proper party".
The present petitioner being neither, the trial Court rightly rejected the requested. Considering the entire gamut of facts, no interference is called for. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine. No costs.
{Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Top