Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.

The civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Trial Court allowing an application permitting the sub agents appointed by the power agent of the plaintiff to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Kadarkarai, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. A suit in OS.No.48 of 2005 was filed on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul on behalf of one Mrs.Kavitha represented by her power of attorney agents Mr.P.Chinniah and Mr.C.Duraisamy. The petitioner in the civil revision petition is the sole defendant in the suit. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,68,800/-together with interest at 2% per month on the principal amount of Rs.4 lakhs, said to have been borrowed by the petitioner herein (defendant) and also for a decree for sale of the mortgaged properties, if there was a failure, to pay the decree debt.

4. Since the suit was filed by persons claiming to be power agents, an application was taken out in IA.NO.177 of 2004 under Order III Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. That application was allowed by the Trial Court by an order dated 20.10.2005. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein/ defendant filed a revision in CRP(PD)(MD)No.101 of 2007 on the file of this Court, contending that under Section 190 of the Indian Contract Act, an agent cannot appoint another person to perform the acts that he was directed by the principal to perform and also on the ground that appointment of agents was not in accordance with Order III Rule 2 of the CPC.

5. By an order dated 14.8.2007, this Court allowed the said revision petition holding that under Order III Rule 2 (wrongly typed as Order V Rule 2 in the order in CRP(PD)(MD)No.101 of 2007), an agent can be appointed only by means of an instrument signed by the principal and that the principal Mrs.Kavitha (plaintiff in the suit) had not executed any instrument appointing Mr.P.Chinniah as power agent.

6. Thereafter, a fresh application was taken out in IA.No.226 of 2007 under Order III, Rule 2, CPC, by P.Chinniah and C.Duraisamy seeking permission to prosecute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff, on the basis of the rectified deed of power of attorney executed by Mrs.Kavitha on 20.11.2007. That application was allowed by the Principal District Court, Dindigul by an order dated 17.12.2009. Challenging the said order, the defendant in the suit has come up with the above civil revision petition.

7. Assailing the order of the trial court, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions, namely

(a) that once the order passed in the earliest application in IA.No.177 of 2004 ( filed under Order III Rule 2) was set aside by this Court in the previous civil revision petition, the Trial Court ought to have rejected or returned the plaint, as there was no plaint in the eye of law; and

(b) that the rectified deed of power of attorney executed on 20.11.2007 will not cure the improper presentation of the plaint in the year 2004 by persons, who had no authority to institute the proceedings.

8. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of the Apex court in Uday Shanker Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, 2006 (1) SCC 75. One of the questions that arose for consideration in that case was whether the presentation of a Memorandum of Appeal by a Vakil without any authority in the shape of a vakalatnama is a valid presentation or not. Incidentally, the Court was also concerned with the question whether such defect could be permitted to be rectified or not. After comparing the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 1, CPC, Order III, Rule 4, CPC and Order VI, Rule 14, CPC, the Supreme Court held in paragraph-16 of its decision as follows:-

“16. An analogous provision is to be found in Order VI, Rule 14, CPC, which requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any