2025:JHHC:36369 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1050 of 2025 Kanchan Kumar, S/o Chandra Bhushan Kumar Singh, R/o J.C. Mallick Road, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Deobrat Sinha 2. Ved Brat Singh 3. Tej Brat Sinha All Sons of Late Shyam Bihari Singh, R/o J.C. Mallik Road Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 04 / Dated : 03.12.2025. 1. Petitioner is defendant in Title Suit No. 3711/2014 which has been filed by the opposite parties (all sons of late Shyam Bihari Singh) for the following reliefs: - I. For a decree for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit land Schedule-B. II. For a declaration that power of attorney dated 15.03.2013 said to be executed by late Shyam Bihari Singh in favour of Kanchan Kumar was fake, fraudulent and illegal and cannot be given effect after the death of Shyam Bihari Singh. III. For a decree for permanent injunction. 2. The petitioner/defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2025 and 12.09.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 3711/2014 renumbered as O.S. No. 1821 of 2020 by which the prayer to recall the order dated 27.05.2024 has been rejected. As the general power of attorney executed on 15.03.2013 in favour of the present petitioner was under challenge, therefore, on 12.09.2024 the said document was sought to be proved by PW1 and for this reason, it was brought on record from C.P. Case No. 3263 of 2013 in which it was earlier exhibited. 2025:JHHC:36369 3. The defendant filed the petition dated 06.03.2025 before the Trial Court to recall the orders dated 27.05.2024, 12.09.2024 and 08.01.2025 by which the registered power of attorney in C.P. Case No. 3263 of 2013 was called for. 4. This petition was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2025 by a detailed reasoned order mainly on the ground that since the general power of attorney was under challenge to be forged a fabricated, therefore, it was necessary to bring it on record the said case. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that that the general power of attorney, which was allegedly forged and fabricated, was considered in C.P. Case No. 3263 of 2013, in which the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Further, the validity of the registered power of attorney again came for consideration in Title Suit No. 3711 of 2014. In this suit also, the validity of the power of attorney was affirmed. 6. Law is settled that the finding in the criminal case with regard to the validity of the power of attorney will not have a binding force on a civil proceeding. 7. Plea that validity of registered power of attorney has been tested in a civil proceeding, cannot be a ground to stop the plaintiff for bringing it on record in a suit where there is a challenge to its validity. The petitioner in effect wants to interdict the plaintiffs from bringing the registered power of attorney on record, which it claims to be vitiated by fraud. Such a course is impermissible. If the issue has already been decided in a civil proceeding, between the same parties, then it will be open to the Petitioner to raise the plea of res judicata. This Civil Misc. Petition being shorn of any merit is dismissed with cost. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - Uploaded 05.12.2025