1 2025:CGHC:2220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 202 of 2024 1 - Prabhulal Nagar S/o Late Kaluji Nagar, Aged About 60 Years R/o Jai Durga Provision Stores, Near Gurudwara, Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, District-Raipur (C.G.) -----(Non-Applicant) ...Applicant. versus 1 - Smt. Kiranjeet Kaur W/o Manjeet Singh, Aged About 69 Years R/o House No. 306, Ward No. 49, Gurunanak Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Behind Guruwara, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Paramjeet Kaur W/o Shri Jasbir Singh, Aged About 67 Years R/o House No.340, Ward No.-49, Gurunanak Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Behind Gurudwara, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). Both are represented through Power Of Attorney Holder Namely Harpreet Singh Ghuman S/o Shri Jasbeer Singh, Gurunanak Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Behind Gurudwara, Raipur, District-Raipur. 3 - Rajkumar Naagar S/o Late Bajrang Lal Naagar, Aged About 51 Years R/o H.N.-461, Ward No. 53, Near Maharana Pratap Homeopathic College, Rishabh Residency, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil-Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through-Its Collector, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.01.15 16:29:32 +0530 2 For Applicant : Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Shri Ankur Agarwal, Advocate. For State Shri Ajit singh, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. This Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by 4th Civil Judge Junior Divison, Raipur in MJC No.53/2024 whereby, objection raised by applicant that Non-Applicant/defendant has not authorized the questioned power of attorney for filing of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code and in absence of such authorization, application is not maintainable, was disallowed by the order impugned. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that applicant has filed civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction as also for declaring sale deed dated 02.12.1998 as null and void. The said suit was decreed ex- parte on 19.12.2022. Thereafter, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred, in which, present application has been filed that no proper power of attorney has been executed in favour of attorney holder enabling him to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The said objection has been disallowed. Hence this Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the first part of power of attorney there was no such authorization and no proper reason has been assigned, therefore, order passed by the court below is not 3 sustainable and he prays to allow the revision. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the defendant/Non-Applicant No.1 and 2 would support the order impugned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the power of attorney executed on 15.03.2018. 6. After going through the averments made in the power of attorney, objection raised by the applicant is baseless and not acceptable and on the other hand, order passed by the trial Court is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 7. Resultantly, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash