M VAIRAVAN Vs. R V PERIANNAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision arises against the order and decretal order dated 24. 11. 2004 made in l. A. No. 293 of 2004 in O. S. No. 45 of 2000 on the file of subordinate Court, Sivagangai, in allowing the respondent/4th Plaintiff to act as Power Agent for the other plaintiffs 3 to 7.

(2.) THE suit was on a pronote and as one among the three brothers/creditors viz. , ramanathan died, his widow, 2 sons and 2 daughters were respectively impleaded as Plaintiffs 3 to 7. The 4th plaintiff was said to be the power of Attorney of his mother and co-bom. At that time when the plaint was presented as no such document of Power of Attorney was annexed, the plaint was returned. Subsequently, the parties by inadvertence have failed to submit the case. The case is posted for arguments. It is at that stage the petition culminating into the impugned order was filed to permit the respondent/4th plaintiff to act as power of Agent of other plaintiffs 3 to 7 and as no prejudice was caused and for the reason that thenceforth it was acted upon, that 4th plaintiff was considered to be the Power of attorney of remaining plaintiffs 3 to 7, the trial Court by its impugned order has allowed the application and aggrieved over the same, the defendent has preferred this Revision.

(3.) THE suit is of the year 2000 based upon the pronote dated 25. 2. 1997 for a sum of Rs. One lakh. Now ten years had elapsed. At that time when the suit is going to be disposed, the respondent/4th plaintiff thought it fit to file this application in order to avoid his being nonsuited on technical ground, whether the acceptability of allowing of such application filed under Order 3, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. at the stage when the case was posted for argument is sustainable is the question before us.