OYYA THEVAR Vs. MUNIA THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 29.1.1999 made in I.A.No.610 of 1999 in O.S.No.197 of 1997 by the Court of District Munsif, Manamadurai, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein who is a third party to the suit proceedings, under O.3, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying to permit him to conduct the suit for and on behalf of the second defendant, as his Power of Attorney Agent, accepting the General Power of Attorney executed by the second defendant, in his favour.

(2.) THE petitioner would allege in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the second defendant has executed a general power of attorney dated 16.4.1998 in favour of the petitioner, to act on his behalf, to sign the affidavit, statement, etc. and thereby praying to permit him to act on behalf of the second defendant in the suit, accepting the general power of attorney executed by the second defendant.

(3.) IT comes to be known that the general power of attorney produced before the Court by the petitioner is a registered document. The plea of the petitioner is that only because the second defendant is not in a position to appear before the Court and conduct the case himself, has come forward to execute the general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. However, it is the case of the respondents in the lower Court and herein that the said power of attorney had not been validly executed, by the second defendant. Their defence is forgery. Without proving it as the defence taken on their part, they have requested the Court to appoint a commission to know whether the second defendant is at home or in the village, or has gone outside somewhere and to know his whereabouts and the Commissioner who is appointed by the Court based on such contentions made on the part of the respondents, has also visited the address offered and submitted a report that for the last 1 1/2 years, he is not residing therein, and thereupon the lower Court also issuing summons to the second defendant to appear before the Court and since there was no response, would decide the petitioner dismissing the same on ground that since the second defendant did not respond to the summons, the petition is dismissed.