/2023 INSC 0331/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.         OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13943­13944 OF 2020)
YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI            ...APPELLANT(S)
 
VERSUS
NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI 
CHAUDHARY & ORS.         ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.         OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13079­13080 OF 2020)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. The  appeals  arising   out  of  SLP(C)  Nos. 13943­13944  of
2020,   filed   by   Yogesh   Navinchandra   Ravani,   challenge   the
final   judgment   and   order   dated   14 th
  February   2020,   passed
by   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat   at   Ahmedabad   in   Civil
1

Application   (for   condonation   of   delay)   No.   2   of   2018   in
R/Second   Appeal   No.   238   of   2015   with   Misc.   Civil
Application   (for   Review)   No.   1   of   2018   in   R/Second   Appeal
No.   238   of   2015,   whereby   the   High   Court   passed   strictures
against   the   appellant­ Yogesh   Navinchandra   Ravani   and
recalled   its   order   dated   11 th
  September   2017,   thereby
restoring  the aforesaid Second Appeal to its original number
and status.
3. Aggrieved   by   the   adverse   remarks   made   by   the   High
Court   in   its   judgment,   appellant   ­   Yogesh   Navinchandra
Ravani   has   preferred   these   appeals   so   as   to   have   those
remarks expunged. 
4. Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13079­13080 of 2020
have   been   filed   by   Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar   against   the
same   impugned   judgment   and   order   as   above,   albeit   the
challenge here is against the restoration of Second Appeal to
its   original   number   and   status   and   the   costs   imposed   upon
the appellant­Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. 
2

5. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are
as under :
5.1 One   Jesangbhai   Kachrabhai   Parmar   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “original   plaintiff”)   had   instituted   a   suit,
bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 92 of 2015 (Old No.165/2001),
before   the   Additional   Senior   Civil   Judge,   Mehsana,
challenging   the   sale   deed   dated   14 th
  September   2000
executed by one Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary in favour
of   one   Sureshbhai   Hirabhai   Chaudhary   with   respect   to   the
suit property. 
5.2 The said suit came to be dismissed by the 7 th
 Additional
Civil   Judge,   Mehsana,   vide   judgment   and   decree   dated   12 th
June   2008.   It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   the   original   plaintiff
had expired on 31 st
 December 2006, i.e. during the pendency
of   the   said   suit   and   his   Legal   Representatives   (“LRs”   for
short) had been brought on record in the said proceedings.
5.3 A   first   appeal,   being   Regular   Civil   Appeal   No.   77   of
2008,   was   preferred   by   the   LRs   of   the   original   plaintiff
3

including   the   appellant­   Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar,   being
the   son   of   the   original   plaintiff   before   the   4 th
  Additional
District   Judge,   Mehsana,   which   too   came   to   be   dismissed,
vide judgment and order dated 23 rd
 July 2015. 
5.4 Thereafter,   a   Second   Appeal,   being   Regular   Second
Appeal No. 238 of 2015 was preferred before the High Court
by   the   LRs   of   the   original   plaintiff,   including   the   appellant­
Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar. It is pertinent to note that the
Second Appeal, which displayed all the LRs of the plaintiff as
appellants,   was   preferred   by   one   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai
Parmar, who was the Power of Attorney holder under a power
of   attorney   executed   by   the   original   plaintiff   on   4 th
  January
2001,   prior   to   his   death.     Another   Power   of   Attorney   dated
20 th
 November 2012, had also been executed in his favour by
the   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar.   Thus,   Lalitbhai
Jesangbhai Parmar was the power of attorney holder only for
the   appellant­   Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar,   and   not   for   the
other   LRs   of   the   original   plaintiff   on   whose   behalf   the
4

aforesaid   Second   Appeal   had   been   preferred.   Crucially,   the
other   LRs   of   the   original   plaintiff   had   not   signed   any
Vakalatnama to prefer the aforesaid Second Appeal. 
5.5 The   registry   of   the   High   Court,   recognizing   the
aforementioned   discrepancy,   raised   office   objections   as   to
whether   the   Vakalatnama   had   been   signed   by   all   the
appellants or not. 
5.6 In spite of repeated opportunities, these objections were
not   removed,   and   the   aforesaid   Second   Appeal   came   to   be
dismissed   on   27 th
  November   2015,   for   non­removal   of   office
objections.   Thereafter,   an   application   being   Miscellaneous
Civil   Application   No.   894   of   2016   for   restoration   of   the
Second Appeal was filed wherein it was stated that the Power
of   Attorney   holder,   i.e.   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar   had
informed the registry of the High Court about his inability to
obtain   authority   letter   from   all   the   LRs   of   the   deceased
original   plaintiff,   thereby   requesting   their   transposition   as
defendants. 
5

5.7 The   High   Court,   vide   Order   dated   9 th
  March   2016,
allowed the said application and restored the Second Appeal
to its original status. 
5.8 Subsequently,   the   Second   Appeal   came   to   be   admitted
by   the   High   Court,   vide   its   order   dated   21 st
  April   2016,   and
the parties were directed to maintain   status quo . The crux of
the dispute begins hereinafter. 
5.9 The   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar,   on   coming
to   know   about   the   filing   of   the   aforesaid   Second   Appeal   by
his Power of Attorney holder­Vithalbhai, cancelled the Power
of   Attorney,   vide   Public   Notice   dated   20 th
  June   2017,   since
the   aforesaid   Second   Appeal   had   been   preferred   without   his
knowledge or instruction. Pursuant to the cancellation of the
Power   of   Attorney,   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar
engaged   appellant­ Yogesh   Navinchandra   Ravani ,   an
advocate, to file a  pursis  for withdrawal of the Second Appeal
and allied civil applications. 
5.10 The High Court, vide order dated 11 th
  September 2017,
6

took on record the aforesaid  pursis  and permitted withdrawal
of the Second Appeal.  
5.11 However,   even   after   cancellation   of   the   Power   of
Attorney   executed   in   favour   of   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai
Parmar, he  filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 before
the   High   Court   for   review   of   its   order   dated   11 th
  September
2017   and   consequent   restoration   of   the   Second   Appeal,   as
well   as   Misc.   Civil   Application   No.   2   of   2018   seeking
condonation of delay. 
5.12 The   High   Court,   vide   impugned   judgment   and   order
dated 14 th
 February 2020, allowed the aforesaid applications,
thereby   restoring   the   Second   Appeal   to   its   original   number
and   status.   Additionally,   costs   were   imposed   upon   the
appellant–   Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar   and   strictures   were
passed   against   the   appellant­ Yogesh   Navinchandra   Ravani
for  his  conduct  as advocate of  Lalitbhai  Jesangbhai  Parmar,
while   seeking   withdrawal   of   the   Second   Appeal.   Hence,   the
present appeals.  
7

6. We have heard Mr. Harin Raval, learned Senior Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Ms.   Divya   Anand
and Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
7. Mr. Raval submits that the very application for review of
the order dated 11 th
 September 2017, at the behest of the so­
called   Power   of   Attorney   Holder   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai
Parmar,   was   not   maintainable.       It   is   submitted   that   the
Power   of   Attorney   in   favour   of   the   said   Vitthalbhai
Maganbhai   Parmar   stood   cancelled   vide   Public   Notice   dated
20 th
  June,   2017.     It   is   submitted   that   the   application   for
review,   filed   using   the   earlier   Power   of   Attorney   of   original
plaintiff   dated   4 th
  January   2001   could   not   have   been   filed,
inasmuch as, on the death of the original plaintiff, the Power
of   Attorney   Holder   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar   had   no
authority to continue with the proceedings.  Learned counsel
submitted that unless a fresh Power of Attorney by the legal
heirs of the deceased original plaintiff   was executed, he could
8

not   have   continued   with   the   proceedings.     It   is   further
submitted   that   once   the   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai
Parmar   had   filed   an   application   for   transposing   of   the   other
legal   heirs   of   the   deceased   original   plaintiff   as   defendants
and once the High Court, having allowed the said application
vide   Order   dated   9 th
  March   2016,   he   became   the   dominus
litis .   
8. It   is   submitted   that   the   strictures   passed   by   the   High
Court   against   the   appellant­ Yogesh   Navinchandra   Ravani ,
who was only a lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant­
Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar,   were   totally   unwarranted   and
uncalled for.  
9. The respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have filed their reply, stating
therein that they had not executed any  Power  of Attorney  in
favour of said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar.  It is submitted
that   they   also   did   not   intend   to   challenge   the   Order   dated
23 rd
  July   2015,   passed   by   the   4 th
  Additional   District   Judge,
Mehsana,   dismissing   the   First   Appeal,   viz.   Regular   Civil
9

Appeal   No.77   of   2008   and,   as   such,   the   application   filed   by
said   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar   for   restoration   of   the
Second Appeal was not tenable. 
10. From   the   perusal   of   the   record,   it   would   reveal   that
Second  Appeal  No.238  of  2015 was  filed  on  behalf  of  all  the
legal   heirs   of   the   original   plaintiff   by   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai
Parmar,   claiming   to   be   the   Power   of   Attorney   Holder   under
Power   of   Attorney   executed   by   the   original   plaintiff   on   4 th
January   2001.     Another   Power   of   Attorney   dated   20 th
November   2012   was   executed   in   favour   of   said   Vitthalbhai
Maganbhai   Parmar   by   the   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai
Parmar.   It is, thus, clear that after the death of the original
plaintiff   on   31 st
  December   2006,   the   said   Power   of   Attorney
dated   4 th
  January   2001   executed   by   him   in   favour   of
Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar   ceased   to   have   any   effect.
Though another Power of Attorney was executed in favour of
said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, it was executed only by
the   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar.     As   such,
10

Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had no right to file appeal on
behalf of the other legal heirs.  
11. The   Registry   of   the   High   Court,   noticing   that   the
Vakalatnama was not signed by all the appellants, had raised
office objections.  On non­removal of the office­objections, the
Second Appeal came to be dismissed on 27 th
 November 2015.
Thereafter,   Miscellaneous   Civil   Application   No.   894   of   2016
came   to   be   filed   for   restoration   of   the   Second   Appeal.     The
said   application   also   came   to   be   filed   by   said   Vitthalbhai
Maganbhai Parmar.  It will be relevant to note the averments
made   by   said   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar   in   the   said
application, which read thus:
“3. The   applicants   state   that   an   office
objection   was   raised   by   the   Registry   as
regards   non­production   of   power   of
attorney   or   authority   letter   on  behalf   of  all
the   heirs   of   deceased   plaintiff   authorizing
the   deponent   to   prefer   the   second   appeal.
The   applicant   state   that   the   deponent   had
informed   the   Registry   about   inability   to
obtain the authority letter of all the heirs of
the   deceased   plaintiff   and   requested   to
permit   their   transposition   as   defendants.
11

The   applicants   submit   that   the   applicants
were under a bona fide impression that the
same shall be allowed and the appeal shall
be listed by the Registry before the Hon’ble
Court for admission hearing in due course.
…”
12. It   appears   that   the   High   Court,   vide   Order   dated   9 th
March   2016,   restored   the   Second   Appeal   to   its   original
status.  
13. It appears that, vide the Office Endorsement dated 13 th
April  2016, the  draft  amendment  and  fresh  title with  names
were   accepted   and,   as   such,   office   objection   came   to   be
removed. 
14. It   would   further   appear   from   the   record   that   an
application   for   Draft   Amendment   came   to   be   filed   by
Nanavati & Company, Advocate for the appellants in Second
Appeal   No.238   of   2015.     It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the
same, which reads thus:
“The   applicant   prays   to   make
amendment   in   the   memorandum   of
petition   in   the   above   matter.     The
applicant   submits   that   due   to   bona   fide
12

mistake   the   names   of   all   the   plaintiffs
were   mentioned   in   the   title   (appellant
side)   in   the   above   mentioned   second
appeal.  The applicant submits that only
one   of   the   legal   heirs­Lalitbhai
Jesangbhai   Parmar   through   Power   of
Attorney   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar
is desirous of pursuing the legal remedy.
Therefore, I humbly request this Hon’ble
Court   to   substitute   the   title   of   the
memorandum   of   appeal   with   a   new   title
provided herewith.”
15. Subsequently,   a   notorised   pursis   dated   19 th
  July   2017
came   to   be   filed   by   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar,
stating therein that, on account of transposition of the other
appellants,   he   was   the   sole   appellant   and   he   wanted   to
withdraw the Second Appeal.   As such, vide order dated 11 th
September 2017, the High Court permitted the withdrawal of
the   Second   Appeal,   and   the   Second   Appeal   stood   dismissed
as withdrawn.  
16. It could thus be seen that, since Vitthalbhai Maganbhai
Parmar   was   having   Power   of   Attorney   on   behalf   of   the
13

appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar,   the   appeal   could
have   been   filed   only   on   his   behalf.     Appellant­Lalitbhai
Jesangbhai   Parmar   had   cancelled   the   Power   of   Attorney
issued   in   favour   of   Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar   on   20 th
June   2017,   by   issuing   a   Public   Notice   in   daily   newspaper,
namely, ‘Sandesh’ on 21 st
  June, 2017.   As such, Vitthalbhai
Maganbhai Parmar had no authority in law to continue with
the Second Appeal.   
17. We   are,   therefore,   of   the   considered   view   that   the   Civil
Application   No.1   of   2018   (for   restoration)   filed   by   said
Vitthalbhai   Maganbhai   Parmar   on   11 th
  October   2018   itself
was not tenable, inasmuch as the Power of Attorney executed
in   his   favour   by   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar   on
20 th
  November   2012   stood   subsequently   cancelled   on   20 th
June 2017 by a issuing Public Notice. 
18. We, therefore, find that, by the impugned judgment, an
anomalous situation has arisen where the appellant­Lalitbhai
Jesangbhai   Parmar,   who   does   not   desire   to   prosecute   the
14

Second   Appeal,   would   be   forced   to   pursue   his   appeal.
Similarly,   the   legal   heirs   of   the   deceased   original   plaintiff,
who   also   do   not   want   to   continue   with   the   proceedings,
would be forced to continue with the litigation.  
19. As discussed herein above, after the transposition of the
other   LRs   was   allowed,   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai
Parmar   was   the   sole   appellant.     As   such,   in   his   position   as
dominus   litis ,   he   was   very   well   within   his   right   to   withdraw
the   Second   Appeal.     After   the   withdrawal   of   the   Second
Appeal   by   appellant­Lalitbhai   Jesangbhai   Parmar,   an
application   for   restoration,   at   the   behest   of   the   Power   of
Attorney   Holder,   whose   Power   of   Attorney   stood   cancelled,
was not at all tenable.  
20. In any case, we find that the observations made by the
High   Court   against   appellant­Yogesh   were   totally
unwarranted and uncalled for.   
21. In   this   view   of   the   matter,   we   find   that   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   not
15

sustainable in law. The same is quashed and aside. 
22. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. 
23. For   the   reasons   stated,   I.A.   No.129619   of   2020   for
deletion   of   respondent   No.4   is   allowed.     All   pending
applications shall stand disposed of.  No costs.  
 
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
…….........................J.       
[VIKRAM NATH]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 25, 2023 
16