Supreme Court quashes High Court order, upholds right to withdraw appeal: Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani vs. Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary (25 April 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 368

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Vikram Nath, J.

Can a person be forced to continue a legal battle against their will? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a party sought to withdraw an appeal, but was compelled to continue by a High Court order. This case clarifies the rights of a litigant to control their case and the limitations of a power of attorney. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, delivered a judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, quashing the High Court’s order and upholding the right of a litigant to withdraw an appeal.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by Jesangbhai Kachrabhai Parmar (original plaintiff) in 2001, challenging a sale deed. The suit was dismissed in 2008, after the original plaintiff’s death in 2006. His Legal Representatives (LRs), including Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar (appellant), filed a first appeal, which was also dismissed in 2015. Subsequently, a second appeal was filed in the High Court by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, claiming to be the power of attorney holder for all the LRs. However, this power of attorney was only valid for Lalitbhai, and not for the other LRs. The High Court registry raised objections regarding the Vakalatnama (authorization to represent), which was not signed by all appellants. The second appeal was dismissed in 2015 due to non-removal of these objections.

An application for restoration of the second appeal was filed by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, who stated that he was unable to obtain authorization from all LRs, and requested their transposition as defendants, which was allowed by the High Court in 2016. Later, Lalitbhai cancelled the power of attorney given to Vitthalbhai in 2017, and sought to withdraw the second appeal. The High Court allowed this withdrawal, but Vitthalbhai filed a review application, which the High Court allowed, restoring the second appeal and passing strictures against the advocate, Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani, who had sought the withdrawal on behalf of Lalitbhai. This led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The original suit was dismissed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana. The first appeal was also dismissed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Mehsana. The second appeal was initially dismissed by the High Court due to non-removal of office objections. Later, it was restored, and subsequently withdrawn by the appellant. The High Court then allowed a review application, restoring the second appeal and passing strictures against the advocate who had sought the withdrawal. This order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of agency and the rights of a litigant to control their case. The court considered the implications of a Power of Attorney, particularly its validity after the death of the principal and its cancellation by the principal. The court also examined the concept of dominus litis, which refers to the party who has control over a legal action.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani and Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar):

• The review application filed by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar was not maintainable as his Power of Attorney had been cancelled.
• The Power of Attorney granted by the original plaintiff ceased to have effect after his death.
• Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar did not have the authority to continue the proceedings on behalf of all legal heirs, as he only held a power of attorney from Lalitbhai.
• Once the High Court allowed the transposition of other legal heirs as defendants, Lalitbhai became the dominus litis and had the right to withdraw the appeal.
• The strictures passed against Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani, the advocate, were unwarranted.

Respondent’s Arguments (Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary & Ors.):

• The respondents (other legal heirs) stated that they had not executed any power of attorney in favor of Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar.
• They did not intend to challenge the dismissal of the first appeal.
• The application for restoration of the second appeal by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar was not tenable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the review application filed by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar was maintainable after the cancellation of his Power of Attorney.
2. Whether Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, as the sole appellant after transposition of other LRs, had the right to withdraw the Second Appeal.
3. Whether the strictures passed by the High Court against Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani were justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision was based on the principles of agency, the rights of a litigant, and the interpretation of the facts presented.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court applied the principles of agency to determine that the power of attorney ceased to exist after the death of the original plaintiff and after its cancellation by Lalitbhai.
• The Court upheld the right of a litigant to control their case and withdraw the appeal.
• The Court held that Lalitbhai became dominus litis after the transposition of other legal heirs, giving him the right to withdraw the appeal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a litigant should have control over their case. The Court emphasized that once Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar became the sole appellant after the other legal heirs were transposed as defendants, he had the right to withdraw the appeal. The Court also noted that the Power of Attorney held by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar was no longer valid after its cancellation and after the death of the original plaintiff. The Court was also concerned that the High Court’s order forced a litigant to pursue a case against his will.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis and legal principles. The factual aspects included the cancellation of the Power of Attorney, the transposition of the legal heirs, and the withdrawal of the appeal by Lalitbhai. The legal principles included the concept of dominus litis, the rights of a litigant, and the principles of agency. The Court’s reasoning was logical and consistent with established legal principles.

The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or legal principles. The Court’s decision was based on a straightforward application of established legal principles to the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was not sustainable in law and quashed the same. The Court held that the review application filed by Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar was not maintainable, and that Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar had the right to withdraw the Second Appeal. The Court also held that the strictures passed against Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani were unwarranted.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

• “It is, thus, clear that after the death of the original plaintiff on 31st December 2006, the said Power of Attorney dated 4th January 2001 executed by him in favour of Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar ceased to have any effect.”
• “We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Civil Application No.1 of 2018 (for restoration) filed by said Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar on 11th October 2018 itself was not tenable, inasmuch as the Power of Attorney executed in his favour by appellant–Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar on 20th November 2012 stood subsequently cancelled on 20th June 2017 by a issuing Public Notice.”
• “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 appellant–Lalitbhai 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.”

There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.

Key Takeaways

• A Power of Attorney ceases to be valid after the death of the principal, unless specifically stated otherwise.
• A Power of Attorney can be cancelled by the principal, after which the attorney has no authority to act on behalf of the principal.
• A litigant has the right to control their case and withdraw an appeal if they are the sole appellant.
• Courts should not force a litigant to pursue a case against their will.
• Strictures against an advocate should only be passed if there is clear misconduct on their part.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and allowed the appeals.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a litigant has the right to control their case and withdraw an appeal if they are the sole appellant, and that a Power of Attorney ceases to be valid after its cancellation and after the death of the principal. This judgment reinforces the principle that litigants should not be forced to pursue cases against their will. The Supreme Court has clarified the position of law regarding the rights of a litigant to control their case and the limitations of a power of attorney.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani vs. Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary & Ors. clarifies the rights of a litigant to withdraw an appeal and the limitations of a power of attorney. The Court emphasized that a litigant should have control over their case and that a power of attorney ceases to be valid after its cancellation and after the death of the principal. This judgment ensures that litigants are not forced to pursue cases against their will and that advocates are not penalized for acting on the instructions of their clients.