LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani vs. Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary & Ors.

SLP(C) · 2023 INSC 428Decided 25 Apr 2023
SLP(C) Nos. 13943-13944 of 2020
B.R. Gavai · Vikram Nath

Background

A Second Appeal in a Gujarat property dispute had originally been filed on behalf of all legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff by one Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, who held a power of attorney only from one heir, Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, and not from the others. After the appeal was dismissed for defects, Vitthalbhai got it restored, the other heirs were transposed as defendants (leaving Lalitbhai as sole appellant), and Lalitbhai, after cancelling Vitthalbhai's power of attorney through a public notice, engaged advocate Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani to withdraw the appeal, which the Gujarat High Court allowed in 2017. Vitthalbhai then filed a review application (using the now-cancelled power of attorney) to restore the appeal, and the High Court not only restored it but also passed adverse strictures against the advocate, Ravani, and imposed costs on Lalitbhai, prompting both Ravani and Lalitbhai to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that once Lalitbhai's power of attorney to Vitthalbhai was validly cancelled by public notice in June 2017, Vitthalbhai had no legal authority to file the October 2018 restoration application, making it wholly untenable. It further held that once the other heirs were transposed as defendants, Lalitbhai, as sole appellant and dominus litis (master of the litigation), was fully entitled to withdraw the appeal, since none of the interested parties (including the other heirs) actually wished to pursue it. The High Court's adverse remarks against advocate Ravani, who was merely acting on his client's lawful instructions, were held to be "totally unwarranted and uncalled for." The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's impugned judgment restoring the appeal and expunged the strictures, allowing both appeals with no costs.

Lesson Learnt

A power of attorney ceases to have legal effect once validly cancelled, and a litigant who is the sole remaining party in a case (the dominus litis) has the right to withdraw it: an advocate who properly acts on such client instructions should not be personally blamed or reprimanded by a court for doing so.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case