Taking note of a case in which a bogus power of attorney (PoA) holder is said to have entered into a compromise deal without the knowledge of the owner of a property, the High Court of Karnataka has issued guidelines to ascertain the identity of litigants, PoAs during compromise or settlement of disputes, be it before the trial courts or the Lok Adalat.
“In the event of a PoA holder appearing, it would be the bounden duty of trial courts or the Lok Adalat to ascertain if the concerned party [whom the PoA holder representing] has been served with the notice,” the High Court said.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions on a petition filed by a 63-year-old woman from Mumbai. She had complained that a compromise petition was filed before a civil court in Hubballi in relation to her property and that the compromise petition was referred to the Lok Adalat, where it was settled through a bogus PoA holder without her knowledge even though she had not executed the PoA.
The High Court found a clear collusion between the person who claimed to be the PoA holder of the petitioner-woman and the plaintiff, the person who had filed a suit against her before the civil court based on an agreement for sale of property executed through the PoA holder.
Also, the High Court noticed that though her name was shown in the suit before the civil court, the plaintiff had mentioned only the address of the alleged PoA holder to ensure that court’s notice not reached her.
Guidelines
In the guidelines, the High Court said the trial courts and the Lok Adalats while recording compromise, are required to ascertain if the parties are present personally, and ascertain and verify their identities based on suitable proof, such as Aadhaar, driving licence, passport, and elector’s identity card.
“The courts and the Lok Adalats would always have to be suspicious if the party were to enter appearance even before service of notice which is a red flag that there is something that is fishy in the matter,” the High Court said on finding that in the instant case the alleged PoA holder had appeared before the civil court for compromise even before service of notice.
The High Court also made it clear that while recording a compromise being entered into through a PoA holder, the original of the PoA is required to be examined by the courts and the Lok Adalat, and necessary endorsement made in the order to the effect, and the original PoA returned to the parties.
As far as possible, the High Court said, the trial courts and the Lok Adalat have to secure the presence of the parties and obtain their signature rather than that of the PoA holder.
