A party can file a suit through a Power of Attorney and if the Court directs, the principal should appear in person. A party who is conversant with the facts should not shun the box, and the principal being visually challenged did not require permission from the Court to examine himself.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 28.06.2012 made in I.A.No.283 of 2012 in O.S.No.121 of 2010, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.121 of 2010 through his daughter as Power Attorney seeking the following relief:

"(a) declaration that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, etc. from interfering with Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

(b) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit; and

(c) granting such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." (extracted as such)

The written statement was filed and the issues were framed and up went the trial. On the plaintiff's side, the said Power Attorney was examined herself as P.W.1 and cross examined. Thereafter, the principal viz., Chithiraikannan filed an application wanted to get himself as P.W.2 and filed the chief examination affidavit. However, the defendants objected to it by filing an in I.A.No.135 of 2012 and the said application was allowed with a direction that the principal viz., Chithiraikanan should get permission to examine himself as witness. Whereupon, the petitioner in response to the earlier order, filed an application in I.A.No.283 of 2012 seeking the following relief: "

“TAMIL”

(Extracted as such)

However, after hearing both sides, the said application was dismissed, as against which, the Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would implore and entreat that Chithiraikannan is a blind person and hence, he filed the suit with the help of his daughter Rohini; the said Rohini was examined formally as P.W.1 as it was she who signed the plaint, on the strength of the power deed; as such, after examining the Power of Attorney, the principal wanted to get himself examined because he only could speak about all the details, whereas his daughter could not speak about the merits of the case; but the lower Court simply dismissed the application warranting interference in the Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents, in all fairness, would submit that the principal viz., Chithiraikannan might be given opportunity to examine himself as P.W.2, for which his clients are having no objection.

6. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court was justified in dismissing the prayer of the principal in examining himself as P.W.2?

The Point:

7. At the outset I would like to extract hereunder Order 18 Rule 3A and Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

Order 18 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"3A. Party to appear before other witnesses.-Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage."

Order 18 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"1. Appearances, etc, may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader.-Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf;

Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person."

8. A cumulative reading of both the aforesaid provisions, would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlig