BOBBY ALEXANDER Vs. HOME SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Power of Attorney of the petitioners in O.P. (Suc.) No. 3 of 2012 of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara. That petition was filed by the petitioners therein on 11.1.2012. Later the petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 1856 of 2012 to allow him continue the proceeding on the strength of a Power of Attorney (allegedly) executed by the petitioners in O.P. (Suc) No. 3 of 212 on 10.8.2011. The learned Munsiff has dismissed I.A. No. 1856 of 2012 as per Ext. P3, order observing that if such a Power of Attorney had been executed in favour of the petitioner herein on 10.8.2011, there was no necessity or occasion for the petitioners in O.P. (Suc.) No. 3 of 2012 to personally file that petition 11.1.2012. A further defect the learned Munsiff pointed out is that the affidavit in support of I.A. No. 1856 of 2012 is not sworn by the petitioners in O.P. (Suc) No. 3 of 2012 or any of them and hence the petitioner herein being a stranger cannot be allowed to continue the proceeding on the strength of the Power of Attorney. Since there was no respondents in O.P. (Suc) No. 3 of 2012, petitioner has arrayed the State Government as a respondent in this Original Petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel submits that merely for the reason that the Power of Attorney was executed on 10.8.2011 but O.P. (Suc) No. 3 of 2012 was personally filed by the petitioners therein in the court below on 11.1.2012, genuineness of the Power of Attorney which is attested before and authenticated by a Notary Public cannot be doubted. The learned counsel has placed reliance on S. 85 of the Evidence Act (for short, "the Act") in support of that contention.