The petitioner/defendant has filed these Civil Revision Petitions as against the orders dated 30.10.2008 in I.A.No.2628, 2629, 2630 and 2631 of 2008 in O.S.No.3265 of 2003 passed by the learned VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Or.9 R.9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, the trial Court has committed a material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction contrary to law and as a matter of fact, the trial Court should have seen that on the instructions of the learned counsel, the petitioner had filed the original Power of Attorney before the Court and indeed the Trial Court had received the Power of Attorney filed by the petitioner but had not passed necessary orders granting leave to the petitioner to represent the defendant in the suit.

.3. It is thefurther contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had not sought the leave of the Court and ingredients of Or.3 R.2 are only a procedural formality and a meritorious case cannot be thrown out on the basis of technicality and in any event, a liberal construction in entertaining the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been taken by the trial Court.

4. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is one for injunction from recovering the possession till the mortgaged money is repaid, when there was no mortgage at all and that the plaintiff rested her suit on a rental agreement and in any event no substantial injustice would be caused to the plaintiff by allowing the application to set aside the exparte decree and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petitions in the interest of justice.

5. It is useful to refer to the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.2628 of 2008 dated 30.10.2008 which runs as follows: "That the petition by the petitioner claiming as Power of attorney of the petitioner has not obtained leave of the court to prosecute the matter at the middle as the power had without leave and the petition filed by requesting him as power agent is untenable. The petitioner could have moved the petition to engage his power agent to conduct the suit. That the non-explaining of the delay of 157 days is appears to be one which is without any justification for condoning the same. Much less as the I.A.No.2629/2008 is dismissed, this I.A. Is also dismissed for the same reasoning for it. Hence petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits. No costs."

6. Also, it is worthto extract the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.2629 of 2008 dated 30.10.2008 passed by the trial Court which runs as follows: "That the petition by the person claiming Power of Attorney of the petitioner has not obtained the leave of the court to prosecute the matter and at the middle as a power holder. Without leave, the petition filed by representing him as Power of Attorney is untenable. The petitioner ought to have moved an application to grant leave. The other question of condoning the delay of 157 days as stated by the petitioner has not been explained for every days delay as alleged by the respondent. The power agent having failed to become a party as per the orders of the Honble High Court now having knew fully well about the happenings of the matter not justified the delay to excuse. Hence at this both counts, the petition fails and dismissed as it is devoid of merits. No cost."

7. The trial Court since it dismissed I.A.Nos.2628 of 2008 and 2629 of 2008, resultantly dismissed the I.A.No.2630 of 2008 and 2631 of 2008 without costs.

.8. It is significant to point out that common affidavit in I.A.No.2628 of 2008 to 2631 of 2008, the petitioner/defendant represented through Power Agent as among other things mentioned that he was suffering from henenteric fever and taking treatment and