SIVANANDAN Vs. M. K. DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the brother of the 10th defendant in O.S. 245 of 1985 of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam. 10th defendant was set exparte by the Munsiff. On his behalf revision petitioner filed I.A. 94 of 1990 to set aside the exparte order. That petition was dismissed by the Munsiff. The appeal filed by him as C. M. A. 11 of 1990 before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara was also dismissed.

(2.) As the interlocutory application was not filed by the 10th defendant but by his brother. The Additional District Judge held that he has no locus standi to take part in the proceedings on behalf of the 10th defendant and hence rejected the application.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the revision petitioner on the strength of Ext. B1 letter from his brother is entitled to prosecute the application to set aside the exparte order against the 10th defendant. Ext. B1 letter sent by the 10th defendant directly to the Court authorises the revision petitioner to defend the suit on his behalf. Additional District Judge held that Ext. B1 cannot be construed, as a power of attorney and it can never be a substitute for power of attorney as contemplated by law and so the revision petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the application.