2025:JHHC:24771 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1062 of 2023 ------ Rajesh Bhushan Shah, son of Late Ratan Lal Sahu, resident of Church Road, Baldeo Sahay Lane, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Daily Market, Town & District Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Madan Mohan Lal, son of Late Rai Shaib Nandlal, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at 3256, Missionin Greek, CT Lasvegas, Nevada, U.S.A. 89135 2. Pushpa Tuli, wife of Sri Ram Prakash Tuli, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 3. Rupa Tuli, wife of Anil Tuli, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 4. Eqbal B. Shawhney, son of K.G. Shawhney, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at Shawhney Building, Block 5, Sargada, Pakistan 5. Prakash Munjal, son of Late Jivan Lal, resident of Kadru, Diversion Road, near Over Bridge, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 6. Harish Munjal, son of Late Jivan Lal, resident of Kadru, Diversion Road, near Over Bridge, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi .... .... .... Opposite Parties With C.M.P. No. 396 of 2025 ------ Rajesh Bhushan Shah, son of Late Ratan Lal Sahu, resident of Church Road, Baldeo Sahay Lane, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Daily Market, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Madan Mohan Lal, son of Late Rai Shaib Nandlal, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at 3256, Missionin Greek, CT Lasvegas, Nevada, U.S.A. 89135 2. Pushpa Tuli, wife of Sri Ram Prakash Tuli, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 3. Rupa Tuli, wife of Anil Tuli, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at Mississauga, Ontario, Candada 4. Eqbal B. Shawhney, son of K.G. Shawhney, resident of Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, at present residing at Sawhney Building, Block 5, Sargodha, Pakistan 5. Prakash Munjal, son of Late Jivan Lal, resident of Kadru, Diversion Road, near Over Bridge, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi 6. Harish Munjal, son of Late Jivan Lal, resident of Kadru, Diversion Road, near Over Bridge, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.5&6 : Mr. Amar Kuma Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anupam Kishore Prasad, Advocate 2025:JHHC:24771 Order No.11 / Dated : 21.08.2025 Both these civil miscellaneous petitions arise out of the order passed in O.S. Case No.277/2020 (earlier T.S No.29 of 2002) now renumbered as O.S. Case No.677/2020 filed by the plaintiff, therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by the common order. 2. While C.M.P No.1062 of 2023 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 07.06.2023 passed in O.S. Case No.277/2020 by which petition for a direction to stop defendant nos.5 and 6, from representing defendant nos.1 – 4, for want of valid power of attorney has been rejected. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the defendant nos.5 and 6 claimed to represent defendant nos.1 – 4 on the strength of a power of attorney executed by them in their favour. However, no power of attorney has been filed on their behalf and despite this they have been granted permission by the learned trial Court to pursue the matter on behalf of defendant nos.1 – 4. Learned trial Court has also noted in the impugned order that no such power of attorney was filed, but rejected the petition on the ground that it will be considered at the argument stage. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party nos.5 and 6 that, it is factually incorrect to submit on the part of the petitioner that no power of attorney has been filed. As a matter of fact, photocopy of power of attorney on behalf of defendant nos.1– 4 in favour of defendant nos.5 – 6 has been filed in Title Suit No.29/2002 from which the present civil miscellaneous petition arise. Certified copy of the power of attorney shall be filed before the trial Court without any further delay. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, it is evident from Para-6(e) of the present civil miscellaneous petition that in T.S. No.180 of 2002, an application was filed by one of the plaintiff attorney as fake and fabricated, but the same was not accepted and the petition was rejected. Against the order of rejection, C.M.P. No.308 of 2022 was filed which was also disposed of without interfering with the said order. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 at no point of time denied the execution of power of attorney in favour of 2025:JHHC:24771 defendant nos.5 and 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has already undertaken to file the certified copy of the power of attorney before the trial Court. 6. Under the circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed with cost. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. C.M.P. No. 396 of 2025 7. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against the order dated 02.04.2025 by which the petition for recalling the order dated 29.01.2025 wherein evidence of plaintiff was closed, was dismissed on the ground that it was an old case registered in the year 2002 and plaintiff wanted to delay the disposal of this case and therefore, had filed the petition without mentioning any genuine reason as to why to recall the order dated 29.01.2025. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel that the defendants were appearing without following any instrument of authorization which was challenged by the plaintiff by way of C.M.P. No.1062 of 2023. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that without examining the plaintiff, the Court has closed the evidence of plaintiff and is inclined to dispose of the suit without examining the plaintiff. 9. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of defendants/opposite party nos.5 and 6 that the valid reasons have been assigned in para 6 of the impugned order that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the plaintiff when the case was posted for argument. The petition for recall was filed without assigning any cogent reason. Reliance has been placed on M/s Shiv Cotex Vs. Trigun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Others (2011) 9 SCC 678, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say `justifiable cause' what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only `sufficient cause' as contemplated in sub- rule (1) of Order XVII CPC but a cause which makes the request 2025:JHHC:24771 for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause.” 10. Indisputably, the Title Suit was filed in the year 2002 and the petitioner does not disclose the date when the issues were framed, how long the case was posted for evidence, and filed the recall petition on 25.03.2025. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order dated 29.01.2025, and the case was posted for argument. Learned trial Court has noted that sufficient opportunities were given to the plaintiff for adducing evidence and without assigning any reason, the recall petition was filed. As noted in the above authority, no party in the case can have unlimited drought on Court hours. Plaintiff is seeking adjournment after more than two decades of filing of the case, which reflects volumes about his intent. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed with cost. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit