1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2305 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.Donald Cardoza 2.Steny Cardoza (A lunatic person through his brother and next friend, Donald Cardoza) 3.Chrisilda Cardoza 4.Pitchammal @ Ignatia Cardoza 5.Delicia Cardoza .. Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 4 & 6 Vs. 1.Vincent P.Rayar through his power agent H.Saroja 2.Xaverina Cardoza .. Respondents/Plaintiff/5th Defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 22.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.201 of 2011 in Original Suit No.52 of 2008 by the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Kalifullah ORDER The order dated 22.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.201 of 2011 in Original Suit No.52 of 2008 by the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.52 of 2008 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of specific performance, wherein the present revision petitioners and second respondent have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed under Order III, Rule 1 coupled with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to accept the power agent of the plaintiff. 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 defendants 1 to 4 and 6, as revision petitioners. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in the present petition and the order passed therein by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission on the basis of the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that the alleged power agent of the plaintiff has not known about the transactions averred in the plaint as well as in the written statement and therefore she has no legal authority to act as power agent of the plaintiff and the Court below without considering the status of the alleged power agent has erroneously allowed the present petition and further the plaintiff has evaded to enter into witness box and therefore the entire order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. It is an admitted fact that Original Suit No.52 of 2008 has been filed praying to pass a decree of specific performance. Therefore the plaintiff is the only person, who is competent to speak about the transactions averred in the plaint. The present petition has been filed so as to recognise the petitioner as power agent of the plaintiff and also to authorise her to give evidence. If the alleged power agent knows personally about the alleged transactions mentioned in the plaint, she can give evidence. But at the same time, if she has not known anything about the alleged transactions and the plaintiff has not given any specific evidence, the Court can draw adverse inference. 6. Considering the fact that the present petition has been filed only to recognise the petitioner as power agent of the plaintiff and also to authorise her to give evidence, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be rejected and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly allowed the petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. 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.201 of 2011 in Original Suit No.52 of 2008 by the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi is confirmed. However the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi is directed to assess the evidence to be given by the alleged power agent of the plaintiff, on the basis of settled law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. +1cc to Mr.M.Kalifullah, Advocate, Sr.No.42992 smn GH : 02.01.2012 : 2p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2305 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 09.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/