Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82290 Court No. - 10 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2662 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shri Sandeep Trivedi Respondent :- M/S Shivraj Products India Pvt. Ltd. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Respondent :- Devansh Misra,Maneesh Kumar,Om Prakash Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devansh Misra and Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present matter has been filed against the order dated 8.2.2023 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court,Kanpur Nagar in Misc Application No. 12/74/19 (M/s Shivaraj Products India Pvt. vs. Sandeep Trivedi and others arising out of commercial suit no. 2 of 2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/ respondent filed a commercial suit no.2 of 2018 before the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar for permanent injunction through one Dalip Tiwari authorised representative of the plaintiff's company and he was doing pairvi of the said suit. The said suit was dismissed in default on 21.1.2019. Against the dismissal of the suit the plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. on 18.2.2019 for recalling the order dated 21.1.2019. He further submits that the said application was filed at the strength of a new Pairokar / attorney holder namely, Ravi Mishra son of Jai Prakash Mishra, resident of 36/1, Kailash Mandir, Kanpur Nagar who has stated that on the previous date the pairokar of the plaintiff was not feeling well, therefore, he could not appear. He further submits that thereafter the defendant/petitioner filed Application No. 12/74/2019 dated 15.10.2019 for initiating proceedings under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. specially stating therein that the general power of attorney was prepared on 20.1.2019 on Rs. 100/- non judicial stamp paper which was purchased in the month of February, 2019, as such, the said power of attorney is a fake document as the same could not be prepared before it was purchased. 4. He further submits that a separate application was also moved on 23.1.2020 by the defendant petitioner before the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar through its Director, Ashish Shukla supported with an affidavit. He further submits that by order dated 8.2.2023 without considering the fact that the forged power of attorney was produced before the Court with malafide intention, the same has been rejected. He further submits that filing of false and fabricated documents in the court of justice is not only amounts interference with the administration of justice but also amounts to criminal contempt of the Court. He further submits that instead of taking action against the plaintiff/ respondent, the application of the defendant/petitioner has been rejected. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submits that there are over writing and cuttings on the date of submission of power of attorney i.e. changing the date as January instead of February by the plaintiff/respondent. He further submit that this could be done even after filing of the same and, therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Court has perused the records. 7. Admittedly, the matter was dismissed in default on 21.1.2019 to which an application under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. has been filed supported by an affidavit of new Pairokar Ravi Mishra annexing therewith the power of attorney. Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon the power of attorney, executed by the Director of the respondent in favour of Ravi Mishra, copy of which has been brought on record by way of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.11.2024. On perusal of the same it transpires at page 5 that the stamp was purchased on 16.2.2019 and at page 7 a different date has been mentioned as 20.2.2019, which has been corrected and over writing has been found mentioning it as January, i.e. 20.1.2019, the same has also been manipulated and over writing has also been found in some of the entries at every page. Once there is over writing on the dates the same ought to have been verified by calling upon the record of the notary, who has attested the same. Passing of the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, cannot be justified as in the said order it does not reflect that the record of the public notary was summoned, which could easily be verified from its record whether the notary was done in January or February. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the matter requires reconsideration. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded before the authority concerned for passing a fresh order de novo. 9.The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 samz Digitally signed by :- SYED AKHTARMOHAMMAD MEQDAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad