Umayal and Ravi vs K. Muthu and K. Subasri

G. Rajasuria, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 24.09.2012 made in I.A. No. 813 of 2012 in

O.S. No. 1391 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli. Heard both sides.

The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would

run thus:

(i) This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the order dated 24.09.2012 passed in I.A. No. 813 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1391 of 2006 by

the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, permitting one Sakthivel to represent the second plaintiff namely Subasri, on the main

ground that the said Subasri was not highlighted to have been put on notice about Sakthivel representing her in the suit proceedings. Despite

objections raised by the defendants, the lower Court simply ignored the same and allowed the said Sakthivel who already happened to be the

power agent of the first plaintiff, to represent the newly added second plaintiff in the suit.

(ii) The lower Court ought to have got itself satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of Sakthivel as the power agent of the second plaintiff-

Subasri and that too in view of the fact that the said Subasri got impleaded as the second plaintiff without referring to Sakthivel who claims to have

got power agent even before Subasri got herself impleaded as the second plaintiff.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would vehemently oppose the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of

the revision petitioners by portraying and parodying the facts, thus:

The said Subasri is none but the sister of the said Sakthivel. Earlier, K. Muthu-the first plaintiff filed the suit through the power agent namely

Sakthivel Pending litigation, the second plaintiff purchased the suit property from the first plaintiff through Sakthivel. Subsequently, the same

Sakthivel sought permission to represent Subasri, who is his own sister, in the litigative process, for which the lower Court granted permission,

over which there could be no legal impediment as he could represent both the first plaintiff as well as the second plaintiff in the suit.

The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the lower Court in allowed I.A. No. 813

of 2012?

The Point:

I recollect and call up the following provisions in the CPC as well as in the Civil Rules of Practice:

Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

R.2. Recognised agents.- The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are-

(a) persons holding power-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties [B, G,

MP];

(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court within

which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only, where no other agent is

expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts.

Rule 16 of the Civil Rules of Practice:

Party appearing by agent.- (1) When a party appears by an agent other than a pleader or advocate, the agent shall before making or doing any

appearance, application, or act, in or to the court, file in court the power of attorney, or written authority, thereunto authorising him, or a properly

authenticated copy thereof/or, in the case of an agent carrying on a trade or business on behalf of a party, without a written authority, an affidavit

stating the residence of his principal, the trade or business carried on by the agent on his behalf and the connection of the same with the subject

matter of the suit and that no other agent is expressly authorised to make or do such appearance, application or act.

(2) The judge may thereupon record in writing that the agent, is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party, and unless and until the said

permission is granted no appearance, application, or act, of the agent shall be recognised by the court.

Even though the Original Side Rules of High Court are not applicable to the lower Court proceedings, yet to take a cue, I would like to extract

hereunder Order II Rule 7 of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1956, thus:

Order II Rule 7 of the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Original Side, 1956:

Except as provided for by the Code, if a plaint is subscribed and verified by a person other than the party on whose behalf it is presented, it

shall not be admitted or filed, unless it is made to appear, upon affidavit, that such person is a recognized agent of the party as defined by Order

III, Rule 2 of the Code, and is duly authorized and competent so to do.

The sum and substance of those provisions would connote and denote that the power agent can file an application with his affidavit enclosing the

power deed in his favour given by the party to the suit concerned, whereupon, it is for the Court to verify and see as to whether the said

application could be allowed or not. If there is any objection by the other side, the same should be considered.

I would like to stress upon the fact that the legislators in their wisdom thought it fit to add a proviso to Order III Rule 2 of the CPC to the effect

that at any time, the Court can call upon the Principal himself or herself to appear before the Court and perform certain act in the litigative process.

As such, keeping this in mind, if the matter is analysed, it is clear that there had been no impediment or hindrance, embargo or legal disability on the

part of Sakthivel to petition the Court seeking permission of the Court so as to permit him to represent the second plaintiff-Subasri also in the suit.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would correctly point out that in the cause title of I.A. No. 813 of 2012, even before he having

been allowed as power agent of the second plaintiff, he assumed himself as though such right was given to him and projected Subasri as his

Principal, and hence, it is necessary to extract the said cause title thus:

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

I.A. No. 813/2012 in O.S. No. 1391/2006

K. Muthu, son of Kasiviswanathan Chettiar, 8, 13th cross, Kumarannagar, Trichy. 620 017, represented by his Power Agent K. Sakthivel, son

of M. Kulandhai Palandar, 5, East Street, K. Sathanur, Trichy. 620 021.

K. Subasri, Daughter of M. Kulandhai Palandar, 5, East Street, K. Sathanur, Trichy. 620 021. represented by his Power Agent K. Sakthivel,

son of M. Kulandhai Palandar, 5, East Street, K. Sathanur, Trichy. 620 021. Petitioners/Plaintiffs

Vs

Umayal, wife of Vellachamy, Sastha Street, Ayyappanagar, Tiruchirappalli. 620 021.

Ravi -do- place.... Respondents/Defendants

(Extracted as such.)

I would like to agree with the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that even before the power agent was allowed to represent Subasri,

in the cause title to I.A. No. 813 of 2012, he has projected and described himself as the power agent of Subasri. However, it is only a technical

error which the Courts would hereinafter meticulously avoid. The power agent should as the petitioner/third party citing the existing parties as such

in the cause title, seek permission based on the power deed found enclosed along with the petition and his affidavit.

The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that in the counter affidavit filed in I.A. No. 813 of 2012, there was no specific

challenge to the power deed. Whereas the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants would gainsay such argument.

Be that as it may, so far this case is concerned, already Sakthivel was the power agent of the first plaintiff and after impleading the second

plaintiff, he sought permission of the Court as above, to represent the second plaintiff also who purportedly purchased the suit property from the

first plaintiff through Sakthivel.

As such, in this factual matrix, no interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is warranted and the point is

answered accordingly.

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, I

would like to place on record for the guidance of the Judges of the lower Courts concerned that meticulously the cause title format should be

adhered to in concinnity and in consonance with the aforesaid provisions. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned Counsel for the

revision petitioners would submit that liberty might be given to the defendants to raise the point before the lower Court about the alleged lack of

knowledge on the part of Subasri that she being represented by Sakthivel. It is open for the revision petitioners/defendants to raise it before the

lower Court in the way known to law.