A.S. Bopanna, J: The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 22.9.2008 passed on I.A.No.V in Mis. No. 1030/2006. The said order is impugned at Annexure-E to the petition.

2. I have heard Sri B.V. Ramamoorthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the writ papers including the order impugned in this petition.

3. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in Mis. No. 1030/2006. The said miscellaneous petition is filed under Order IX, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC. The respondents indicated in the miscellaneous petition have entered appearance and filed their written statement. Subsequently, the present application in I.A. No. V is filed under Order VIII, Rule I-A reed with Section 131 of whereunder general power of attorney dated 25.8.2008 and the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S. No. 31/96 were filed with leave to file the same before the Court. The petitioner in the said miscellaneous petition i.e.; the petitioner in this petition objected to the same. The Trial Court after considering the same has allowed the application and has taken the documents on record. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended by the learned Counsel that the Trial Court was not justified in allowing the documents to be filed since the respondents were prosecuting the case through another power of attorney holder and at this point of time, the subsequent power of attorney dated 27.8.2008 cannot be filed before the Court. In this regard, I am of the view, all that has been done by allowing IA.No.V is to permit the respondents to file the said documents which was filed along with the application. A perusal of the provision would indicate that the documents filed by the defendants/respondents could be taken on record by the Court at its discretion. In the present case, the Trial Court has exercised its discretion to accept the documents on record. If at all the petitioner herein has any grievance with regard to the power of attorney filed in the case, the said question would arise only when the matter is taken up for consideration and in such event, to find out as to whether the present power of attorney is maintainable to represent the respondent or not. Since this question is still open to be considered by the Trial Court, I do not find any error in the order impungned in this petition insofar as the allowing the said application and taking the documents on record.

5. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits is disposed of with the above observations. No order to Costs.