Bal Krishna Das, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

[markandey katju ; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - code of civil procedure (c.p.c.) 1908 - section 151 - saving of inherent powers of court -- 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. 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. pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas cannot be allowed to say that their own act of signing the compromise petition was collusive and fraudulent. the high court has observed that defendants nos. 2 and 2a viz., pushpa biswas and apurva kumar biswas should have consulted the power of attorney dr. sanjeev kumar mishra before signing the compromise petition. the principal is not bound to consult his attorney before signing a compromise petition. the impugned judgment and order of the high court is set aside and the order dated 7.6.2002 of the learned subordinate judge-v, bhagalpur is restored.1. on call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. on perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.8.2010 also, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners on call of the case. the case was adjourned for the day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. while adjourning, it was noticed that in this case, interim order was continuing since 17.5.2004. on 31.8.2010, the case was adjourned for four weeks on the prayer of petitioners for filing supplementary affidavit. the record shows that no supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners nor any one has appeared today on behalf of the petitioners. it is a case for offences under sections 323, 376/511 and 34 of the indian penal code. 3. i have perused the impugned order of cognizance dated 11.6.2002 as well as material available on record. i do not find any defect in the order of cognizance nor i find any material for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners, which is to be exercised in exceptional cases. 4. accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 5. in view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 17.5.2004 stands automatically vacated. 6. let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.