Parvatibai by Her Agent Sadashiv B. SaThe Vs. Vinayek Pandurang and ors. - Court Judgment
|Judge||West and ;Birdwood, JJ.|
|Appellant||Parvatibai by Her Agent Sadashiv B. Sathe|
|Respondent||Vinayek Pandurang and ors.|
recognized agent - civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 37--agent's right to execute decree obtained by him as agent--waiver--execution of decree. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc..........of thana, though not within the sub-division under the court at mahad, and the subordinate judge in appeal thought that the pi representation by agent could not operate when the lady herself was within the jurisdiction. but it is to be observed that she ra was thus represented, and apparently with the assent of the defendants themselves, throughout the litigation which led to the decree now in question. saddshiv, as appellant, acting for parvatibai, obtained a decree against the defendants in the district court. in the appeal thence to this court, sadashiv was made a respondent. under these circumstances, we think that he cannot now, at the instance of the defendants, be prevented from executing, as agent, the decree which he has obtained as agent. his right to represent.....
1. In the present case the Subordinate Judge has in appeal held that Sadashiv, who, as agent under a general power, properly conducted a suit for Parvatibai in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Mahad, cannot represent her in the District Court in questions arising on appeal in the execution proceedings, Parvatibai, it appears, resides within the District of Thana, though not within the sub-division under the Court at Mahad, and the Subordinate Judge in appeal thought that the Pi representation by agent could not operate when the lady herself was within the jurisdiction. But it is to be observed that she rA was thus represented, and apparently with the assent of the defendants themselves, throughout the litigation which led to the decree now in question. Saddshiv, as appellant, acting for Parvatibai, obtained a decree against the defendants in the District Court. In the appeal thence to this Court, Sadashiv was made a respondent. Under these circumstances, we think that he cannot now, at the instance of the defendants, be prevented from executing, as agent, the decree which he has obtained as agent. His right to represent Parvatibai might have been challenged in the appeals, and possibly the same reasons would apply to representation in an appeal as in an original suit, but the objection having been virtually waived, cannot be taken after the defendants have had their chance of success in the litigation. Compare Bisandas v. Lakhimchand 6 Bom. H.C. K 159, A.C.J It is only Parvatibai herself who can now supersede Sadashiv.
2. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and remand the case for disposal on the merits. Costs to abide the event.