Sushma Ravidas v. Jamna Datwani

1. The present petition seeks review of order dated 20th December, 2019 in order to clarify that the issue as to whether Mr. Sudarshan Kumar, who has filed the petition on behalf of Mrs. Sushma Ravidas, is validly acting under her authority or not, ought to be decided as a preliminary issue. Mr. Deepak Khosla, ld. counsel submits that this issue goes to the root of the matter in this litigation and various other litigations and hence the issue ought to be adjudicated as a preliminary issue before the final hearing of the petition itself. 2020:DHC:536

2. This Court, vide order dated 20th September, 2019 and 20th December, 2019 has passed detailed directions calling upon the Petitioner to place on record the original Powers of Attorney which are the subject matter of such acrimonious litigation and repeated applications being filed before this Court. The matter was heard on these two dates and has now been adjourned to 23rd March, 2020 for further hearing. The issue of the validity/legality of the Powers of Attorney and whether Mr. Sudarshan Kumar can maintain these petitions or act as the Power of Attorney holder of Mrs. Sushma Ravidas being an issue of such dispute between the parties, would have to be considered and decided by this Court as part of the final hearing of this petition. This Court does not deem it necessary to clarify that the said issue has to be decided as a preliminary issue as the petition has to be decided comprehensively after hearing ld. counsel for the parties.

3. In the meantime, the Court queried from the ld. counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the Powers of Attorney were placed on record, as directed by the Court. Ms. Neelima Tripathi, ld. counsel submits that an application was moved as the sealing, in the understanding of the Petitioner was to be carried out in front of the Dy. Registrar and for the said purpose, the date of 24th January, 2020 was fixed.

4. The Court has perused the application i.e. CM No. 2505/2020. The ld. Single Judge who had considered the said application, had fixed the matter for sealing of documents on 24th January, 2020 before the Dy. Registrar vide order dated 22nd January, 2020. However, on the said date, it is stated that the sealing did not take place as there was an error in the date of the Power of Attorney mentioned in the application.

5. The Court has now been handed over the following three documents: i. The alleged original Power of Attorney dated 12th December, 2010 which is stated to be actually 6th December, 2010 by the Petitioner, as per the manner of writing of date in the United States where the said document was allegedly executed. The said Power of Attorney is taken on record and shall be looked at the time of final hearing. ii. The second original Power of Attorney dated 14th July, 2012 along with the notarial certificate thereof iii. Delegation of authority letter dated 7th August, 2012 have also been handed over. The above three documents be handed by the Court Master to the Dy. order dated 22nd January, 2020, the copy to copy of the originals be provided to both ld. counsels for the parties.

6. In view of the above observations, the review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) Legal Aid Society. All the IAs are disposed of.

7. List before Court on 23rd March, 2020, the date already fixed. The Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Sudarshan Kumar shall remain present on the next date.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 27, 2020 MR