REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2728 OF 2006

Deb Ratan Biswas and others ..      Appellants

-versus-

Most. Anand Moyi Devi & others ..           Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. This appeal  has been filed against  the impugned judgment  

and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by learned Single Judge of the  

Patna High Court in Civil revision No. 945 of 2002.

1

2. The facts have been stated in the impugned judgment and we  

are not repeating the same except where necessary.

3. It appears that a Title Suit No. 186 of 1984 by one Nrisingha  

Prasad Biswas  and his four sons (who are the appellants herein)  

was  filed against  the  respondents  herein  before  the Subordinate  

Judge-V, Bhagalpur for partition of certain properties.  While the  

aforesaid partition suit was pending, the defendants Smt. Pushpa  

Biswas and Apurva Kumar Biswas  executed a General Power of  

Attorney  on  31.7.1992  in  favour  of  Umesh  Chandra  and  Dr.  

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra and the same was registered.  The terms  

and conditions giving the powers to the attorneys were  specifically  

set out in the Power of Attorney itself.  

4. On 30.7.1996, the parties to the suit including Pushpa Biswas  

and Apurva Kumar Biswas filed a compromise petition which was  

forwarded  to  the  Sheristedar  for  scrutiny  and  report.   On  

31.7.1996,  on  receiving  the  report  of  the  Sheristedar  dated  

2

30.7.1996,  the  Subordinate  Judge-V,  Bhagalpur  approved  the  

terms of the compromise and directed that a decree be passed in  

terms of the compromise.

5. Subsequently,  on 29.8.1996, a petition purporting to be on  

behalf  of  Pushpa  Biswas  and  Apurva  Kumar  Biswas  was  filed  

through the attorney Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra under Section 151  

CPC being  Miscellaneous  Case  No.  13/16  of  1996  praying  for  

recalling  the  order  dated  31.7.1996  passed  in  terms  of  the  

compromise  on  the  allegation  that  the  signatures  on  the  

compromise were forged.  

6. On  7.6.2002,  the  learned  Subordinate  Judge-V,  Bhagalpur  

held that Miscellaneous Petition  filed at the instance of only one  

of the attorneys was not maintainable, as according to the terms of  

the power of attorney both the constituted attorneys were entrusted  

to act jointly.  Hence, he dismissed the Miscellaneous Case filed  

by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra.    

3

7. Against  that  order  dated  7.6.2002,  the  respondents  herein  

filed a Civil Revision being Civil Revision No. 945 of 2002 which  

was allowed by the impugned judgment, and hence this appeal.

8. In  the  order  dated  7.6.2002 in  Misc.  Case  No.  13/96,  the  

learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur considered the prayer of  

the applicant in that Miscellaneous Case that the the compromise  

petition had not been signed by the petitioners and their signatures  

were  forged.  The  finding  of  fact  recorded  by  the  learned  

Subordinate  Judge-V,  Bhagalpur  after  detailed discussion of  the  

evidence was that there was no forgery.  This finding is based on  

material on record and it is a finding of fact.   Hence it could not  

have been validly interfered with in Civil Revision by the High  

Court.

9. In his order dated 7.6.2002, the learned Subordinate Judge-V  

Bhagalpur has held that Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra was only an  

attorney  and  he  cannot  claim  any  independent  capacity  in  the  

proceedings.   We  agree  with  this  view.  The  principal  Pushpa  

4

Biswas and Apurva Kumar Biswas have signed the compromise  

for partition of the property, which in our opinion in law amounts  

to implied revocation of power of attorney in favour of Dr. Sanjeev  

Kumar  Mishra  vide  Illustration  to  Section  207  of  the  Indian  

Contract Act.  Pushpa Biswas and Apurva Kumar Biswas cannot  

be allowed to say that  their  own act of signing the compromise  

petition was collusive and fraudulent.

10. The learned Subordinate Judge-V, Bhagalpur has gone into  

the evidence in great detail  and recorded findings of fact which  

could  not  have been interfered  with  by the High Court  in  civil  

revision.  It is well settled that in civil revision the jurisdiction of  

the High Court is limited, and it can only go into the questions of  

jurisdiction, but there is no error of jurisdiction in the present case.  

11. We have  carefully  perused  the  impugned judgment  of  the  

High Court.  The High Court has observed that defendants Nos. 2  

and  2a  viz.,  Pushpa  Biswas  and  Apurva  Kumar  Biswas  should  

5

have consulted the power of attorney Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra  

before signing the compromise petition.  This is a strange kind of  

reasoning.   The  principal  is  not  bound  to  consult  his  attorney  

before signing a compromise petition.     

12. The  High  Court  has  also  held  that  if  Dr.  Sanjeev  Kumar  

Mishra  was  not  willing  to  sign  the  compromise  petition  his  

unwillingness  should  have  been  mentioned  in  the  compromise  

petition.  This also is a strange reasoning.   It is well-settled that  

even after execution of a power of attorney the principal can act  

independently  and  does  not  have  to  take  the  consent  of  the  

attorney.   The attorney is after all only an agent of the principal.  

Even after executing a power of attorney the principal can act on  

his own.  

13. For  the  reasons  given  above  this  appeal  is  allowed.   The  

impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and  

6

the  order  dated  7.6.2002  of  the  learned  Subordinate  Judge-V,  

Bhagalpur is restored.  There shall be no order as to costs.  

……………………….J. (Markandey Katju)

……………………….J. (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi; April 15,  2011

7