SAKADEVAN Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner as against the order passed in I.A.No.1165 of 2021 in O.S.No.164 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri dtd. 20/9/2022, wherein the petitioner herein has filed a petition under Order 3 Rule 2 to recognise the power agent and permit the petitioner to conduct the case through power agent, which petition was dismissed by the trial Court. As against the said dismissal order, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the Revision petitioner.

(2.) The Revision petitioner herein has filed a petition before the trial Court stating that he is the plaintiff in the main suit and the main suit has been filed for the relief of declaration and injunction and that he is aged about 68 years and he was affected by polio and permanently disabled. Thereafter, he was affected by diabetic and blood pressure and taking treatment. While so, he already filed proof affidavit before the trial Court and marked the documents. Thereafter his right leg was amputated, he is unable to move without assistance of others in a wheel chair. Due to his illness, very often he feel giddiness and thereby he is unable to sit for a long time. Therefore, he appointed power agent viz., one Arul Gandhi who is son of the petitioner and filed petition to recognise him as Power Agent but the trial Court has dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, the present Revision.

(3.) According to the respondent, the suit was filed in the year 2016 and the plaintiff also filed proof affidavit in the suit, therefore, the IA seeking to recognise the Power Agent was filed in order to delay the proceedings; further the plaintiff/revision petitioner has not produced any medical records to support his illness. He would further submit that even if the Plaintiff/Revision petitioner is not able to move, Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to examine the Plaintiff/petitioner as witness. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the IA and this revision petition challenging the same need not be entertained by this court.