Skip to content


Ganpati Nana Powar and anr. Vs. Jivanabai Kom Subanna by Her Mukhtyar Baburao Tukaram Kashid - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom44(1); (1923)ILR47Bom227
AppellantGanpati Nana Powar and anr.
RespondentJivanabai Kom Subanna by Her Mukhtyar Baburao Tukaram Kashid
Excerpt:
power-of-attorney - difectice power-of-attorney--direct not affecting merits of case or jurisdiction of court--court not justified in disturbing decree in appeal--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order iii, rule 2, clause (a) (as amended by rule 3 of bombay high court rules, 1921) and section 99. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860].sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293 & 295a; [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] declaration as to forfeiture of book held, the power can be exercised only if the government forms opinion that said publication contains matter which is an offence under either of sections 124-a, 153-a, 153-b, 292, 293, 295a of i.p.c., .....on the strength of which the suit was filed, is a special power-of-attorney and not a general power-of-attorney within the meaning of the rule as framed by this court, which is as follows:the recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are person's holding general powers-of-attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.2. we are by no means clear in this case that the words used in the power-of-attorney are not sufficient to constitute it a valid general power-of-attorney. but, assuming in favour of the.....
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. The only point urged in support of this appeal is that the power-of-attorney, on the strength of which the suit was filed, is a special power-of-attorney and not a general power-of-attorney within the meaning of the rule as framed by this Court, which is as follows:

The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are person's holding general powers-of-attorney from parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, authorising them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.

2. We are by no means clear in this case that the words used in the power-of-attorney are not sufficient to constitute it a valid general power-of-attorney. But, assuming in favour of the appellants that the words are not sufficient to constitute it a general power-of-attorney, the objection is covered by Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as it is an error, defect or irregularity in the proceedings in the suit not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of this Court, we do not think that we would be justified in disturbing the decree appealed from on that ground. The decision of this Court in Charles Palmer v. Sordbji Jamshedji (1886) P.J. 83 which related to Section 576 in the Code of 1882, corresponding to Section 99 of the present Code, supports this view. We, therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //