Madras High Court
N.Gokula Rao vs Janardhanan on 4 November, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)No.4433 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.4433 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.24698 of 2024
N.Gokula Rao .. Petitioner
Vs
1.Janardhanan
2.Srinivasan
3.Udhaya
4.Nirmala
5.Priya
6.Vani
7.Prasanna
8.Mala
9.Renuka Devi
10.Anitha
11.Hari Prasad
12.Balakrishnan
13.Suryakumari
14.Aishwarya
15.Suganya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.R.P.(PD)No.4433 of 2024
16.Saranya
17.Indhumathi
18.Aparna
19.Jai
20.Venkatesh
21.Pushpakantha
22.Babu Pugazhendi
23.Logeswaran
24.Murugavel
25.E.Ramu
26.E.Ethiraj
27. Sub-Registrar, Chennai,
North Joint 1, No.1,
Moorthykal Lane,
Chennai-600 001.
28.Sub Registrar,
Sri Perumbudur Road,
Walajabad – 631 605.
29. The District Collector Chennai,
62, Rajaji salai, Fourth floor,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 001.
30. The District Collector Kanchipuram,
The District Collector, First Floor,
Collectorate, Kanchipuram-631 501. .. Respondents
(R3 to R30 respondents/defendants herein
were set exparte before the trial Court)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
C.R.P.(PD)No.4433 of 2024
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the impugned order dated 19.10.2024
passed in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2020 on the file of the
Additional Subordinate Court at Kanchipuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Gokula Rao, party-in-person
For RR 27 to 30 : Mr.R.Siddharth, Govt. Advocate
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the
learned II Additional Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram in I.A.No.7 of
2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2020 dated 19.10.2024.
2. O.S.No.162 of 2020 has been preferred by the civil revision
petitioner seeking for the relief of declaration and for consequential
reliefs. The respondents 1 & 2 are the defendants 1 & 2 in the suit. On
account of the fact that the defendants 1 & 2 are not in a position to
appear in person and depose before the Court due to old age and
sickness, they appointed one Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar as their power of
attorney. Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar, in exercise of the power, filed an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
application under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
permit him to represent his father, the 2nd defendant as the power of
attorney and also to file a proof affidavit on his behalf. This application
was numbered as I.A.No.7 of 2024.
3. The learned Judge ordered notice to the civil revision
petitioner/plaintiff and allowed the application. Hence, this revision.
4. Heard Mr.N.Gokula Rao, the civil revision petitioner/party-in-
person.
5. Mr.N. Gokula Rao urges that the power of attorney is not aware
of the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the power of
attorney should not be permitted to represent the respondents. He further
urges that though the suit is of the year 2020, the application came to be
filed only in 2024 and hence, it ought not to be allowed. He relies upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v.
Indusind Bank Ltd., 2005 (2) SCC 217 to press home this point.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.N.Gokula
Rao, the party-in-person.
7. In terms of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, it permits a
party to be represented by his power of attorney to conduct the matter on
his behalf.
8. The respondents 1 & 2 have entered appearance and have filed a
detailed written statement. As to whom the defendant wants to appoint
his power of attorney cannot be dictated by the plaintiff. It is entirely
within the discretion of the defendants, to appoint a person to represent
them, in a proceeding. Order III of the C.P.C. proceeding is entirely
between the Court and the party.
9. With respect to the submission on delay, it has to be pointed out
that the defendants 1 & 2, not being in a position to appear before the
Court on account of their sickness and age and wanted to appoint their
power of attorney to depose on their behalf, when the matter was listed
for evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Though the suit is of the year 2020, it has come up for
evidence of the defendants only in 2024. At that stage, the respondents
could have filed a petition under Order III of the C.P.C. Therefore, I do
not find the delay as a ground to reject the petition.
11. With respect to the plea that the power of attorney is not in a
position to speak about the nature of the documents, it is for the plaintiff
to take advantage of the same at the time of examination. If the power of
attorney is not aware of the facts or is not in a position to depose on
certain aspects, it will certainly be advantageous to the plaintiff. On that
ground too, I cannot reject a power of attorney's petition.
12. In the light of the above discussions, the civil revision petition
stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.11.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Subordinate Judge at Kanchipuram.
2. Sub-Registrar,
North Joint 1, No.1,
Moorthykal Lane,
Chennai-600 001.
3.Sub-Registrar,
Sri Perumbudur Road,
Walajabad – 631 605.
4. The District Collector Chennai,
62, Rajaji salai, Fourth floor,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 001.
5. The District Collector Kanchipuram,
The District Collector, First Floor,
Collectorate, Kanchipuram-631 501.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
kj
04.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
