Summary
A power of attorney holder filed a second appeal in the names of all legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff though only one heir had authorised him; after the other heirs were transposed as respondents, that heir cancelled the power of attorney and withdrew the appeal through a new advocate. The Gujarat High Court later reviewed the withdrawal at the instance of the former attorney holder, restored the appeal, imposed costs on the heir and passed strictures against the advocate. The Supreme Court set this aside, holding that the power of attorney from the original plaintiff lapsed on his death, that the heir's power of attorney stood cancelled before the review application, that the heir as sole appellant and dominus litis was entitled to withdraw, and that the strictures against the advocate were wholly unwarranted.
Issues
- Whether a power of attorney holder whose authority from the original plaintiff ended on the plaintiff's death, and whose later authority from one legal heir was cancelled by public notice, could maintain an application to review the order permitting withdrawal of the second appeal and to restore it.
- Whether a legal heir who, after transposition of the other heirs as respondents, was the sole appellant could withdraw the second appeal as dominus litis.
- Whether the strictures passed by the High Court against the advocate who filed the withdrawal pursis were justified.
Held
- A power of attorney executed by the original plaintiff ceased to have effect on his death; the later power of attorney was executed only by one legal heir, so the attorney holder had no right to file the second appeal on behalf of the other heirs, who had signed no vakalatnama. (¶¶ 10, 11, 16)
- Once the heir who alone had authorised the attorney holder cancelled the power of attorney by public notice, the attorney holder had no authority in law to continue the second appeal, and his subsequent application for review and restoration was not tenable. (¶¶ 16, 17, 19)
- After the other legal heirs were transposed as respondents, the remaining heir was the sole appellant and, as dominus litis, was well within his right to withdraw the second appeal; restoring the appeal would force both him and the other heirs, none of whom wished to litigate, to continue the proceedings. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The observations made by the High Court against the advocate who acted on his client's instructions to withdraw the appeal were totally unwarranted and uncalled for. (¶ 20)
Result
Both sets of appeals allowed; the High Court's judgment dated 14 February 2020 restoring the second appeal, imposing costs and passing strictures quashed and set aside; application for deletion of respondent No. 4 allowed; pending applications disposed of. No costs.