M. NACHIAPPAN Vs. SELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Power of Attorney holder of the 11th defendant in the original suit O.S. No. 197 of 2009 on the file of Sub-Court, Perundurai is the petitioner in the present revision on behalf of the 11th defendant. The above said suit was filed for partition and separate possession against 11 persons including P.C. Duraisamy, who has been arrayed as the 11th defendant. The 11th defendant initially entered appearance and filed his written statement. During the course of trial and after the plaintiff's evidence was closed, I.A. No. 1086 of 2011 came to be filed by M. Nachiappan, claiming to be the Power of Attorney holder of P.C. Duraisamy (the 11th defendant) under Order III Rule 2 CPC with the prayer that he may be recognized as Power Agent of the 11th defendant P.C. Duraisamy and be permitted to prosecute the suit on behalf of the said P.C. Duraisamy. A further prayer was also made praying that he might be permitted to give evidence as Power Agent of the 11th defendant P.C. Duraisamy. Along with the petition, a notarized deed of Power of Attorney dated 04.07.2011 was also produced. The said petition was resisted by the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the above said suit, contending that the 11th defendant P.C. Duraisamy had not filed any affidavit and that Nachiappan, who claims to be the Power of Attorney holder of the 11th defendant, cannot be allowed to give evidence as a substitute for the 11th defendant. Sustaining the said objections, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said petition by order dated 30.01.2012. The same is challenged in the present revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The arguments advanced by Mr. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused.

(3.) P.C. Duraisamy, who figures as the 11th defendant in the suit, originally appeared by engaging a counsel and he himself filed a written statement. During the course of trial, it is claimed on behalf of the revision petitioner that he has authorized Nachiappan to act on his behalf in the conduct of the case by appointing him as an agent by virtue of a deed of Power of Attorney dated 04.07.2011 executed by P.C. Duraisamy. On the strength of the said deed, which is a notarized one, the above said petition came to be filed by the Power of Attorney holder seeking permission to conduct the case (defend the case) as Power Agent of P.C. Duraisamy (the 11th defendant). Since the original notarized deed of Power of Attorney has also been produced, the conditions stipulated in Rule 16 of the Civil Rules of Practice stands complied with.