1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2039 of 2011 & MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Arumugam Kanthaswami Nadar:Petitioner/1st Respondent/1st Defendant -Vs- 1.M.Roslin :Respondent/Petitioner/Power holder of Plaintiff 2.Somasundari :2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 19.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009 in Original Suit No.453 of 2004 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil. For Petitioner:Mr.K.Vamanan ORDER The order dated 19.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009 in Original Suit No.453 of 2004 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2.One Frankamal has instituted Original Suit No.453 of 2004 on the file of the Court below for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner and the second respondent have been shown as defendants. Original Suit No.453 of 2004 has been dismissed for default and the original plaintiff has filed a petition so as to condone the delay in filing a petition for setting aside the dismissal order. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009 under Order III, Rule 2 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to admit the petitioner therein as power of attorney agent of the plaintiff in Original Suit No.453 of 2004 and the Court below has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the first respondent/first defendant as revision petitioner. 3.Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that after dismissal of suit filed in Original Suit No.453 of 2004, the original plaintiff has filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay in filing a petition for setting aside the dismissal order and the alleged power of attorney deed has been executed even prior to filing of the said petition and under the said circumstances the present petition is not factually and also legally maintainable and the Court below without considering the above lapses has erroneously allowed the present petition and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.In fact, the present petition has been filed, as stated earlier, for the purpose of recognising the petitioner therein as power of attorney agent of the plaintiff in Original Suit No.453 of 2004. From the order passed by the Court below, it is learnt that Original Suit No.453 of 2004 has been dismissed for default and the original plaintiff has filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay mentioned therein in filing a petition for setting aside the dismissal order. But the power of attorney deed has come into existence even prior to filing of the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that itself would not pave the way for dismissing the present petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009. In the present petition, a limited relief has been sought for to the effect that the petitioner therein has to be recognised as power of attorney agent of the original plaintiff Considering the nature of the relief sought for Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009 and also the order passed by the Court below, this Court is of the view that the Court below has not committed any mistake in allowing the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009 and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1290 of 2009 in Original Suit No.453 of 2004 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. +1CC to M/s.K.Vamanan, Advocate. SR.No.36994. Smn RP/10.11.2011/2P/3C. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2039 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 28.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/