The agent appointed under Order III Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. need not have full personal knowledge and be fully conversant with the case. The agent, acting on behalf of the petitioner, should be treated as if deposed by the petitioner, and thus, is fully conversant with the case and has personal knowledge about the transactions covered under the suit.

ORDER :

V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned III Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai in I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in O.S. No. 3746 of 2015.

2. Originally, the Interlocutory Application was filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order III Rule 1 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to permit the petitioner's elder brother to represent on behalf of the petitioner as power of attorney agent and to give evidence on behalf of him.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for fixing fair rent for the suit property, in which, the petitioner is a tenant. The petitioner herein has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 9104 of 2018, seeking permission of the Court to appoint his brother as a special power agent by assigning all power pertaining to the suit, including to give evidence. The petitioner has executed a general power of attorney on Non Judicial Papers valued around Rs. 20/- and thereafter, he came to know that the document should be prepared in stamp papers valued at Rs. 100/-. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew the Interlocutory Application with liberty to file a fresh application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 13888 of 2018 for the similar relief, in which objection was raised stating that the power agent has not affixed his signature in the deed and the said application was also withdrawn with liberty. Then, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1 of 2019 with mistakes and the same was sworned by the petitioner's brother instead of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has withdrawn the petition and then, he filed I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in O.S. No. 3746 of 2015. The learned III Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai, by order, dated 17.12.2019, dismissed the application, against which, the present civil revision.

4. The respondent/plaintiff has filed counter in I.A. No. 2 of 2019, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and submitted that there is no reason given either in the affidavit or in the deed for giving power to the agent. Further, the respondent objected that the application filed at the part heard stage cannot be entertained.

5. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent Trustee for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 60,000/- per month. In the said suit, the petitioner filed his written statement and cross examined the respondent/plaintiff's witnesses. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 216 of 2018 to recall the defendant's side witnesses; I.A. No. 217 of 2018 to reopen the defendant's side evidence; I.A. No. 218 of 2018 to recall PW2 for the purpose of cross examination and I.A. No. 219 of 2018 to reopen PW2's evidence. After all these applications were allowed, on his instruction, the witnesses were cross examined by his counsel. Therefore, until 20.06.2018 when PW2 was cross examined, it is the petitioner who had given instruction to conduct the case and to defend the suit. The petitioner is in occupation of the respondent's property and he has been paying rent and after enhancing the rent by the trustees, he is not paying the enhanced rent. These facts which are within the personal knowledge of the petitioner and it is only he who can depose about these facts and the said power of attorney agent will not be in a position to appear before the Court to give evidence for any valid reason. The Court below observed that though reason has been assigned by the petitioner for not deposing on his behalf, no reason has been given by the petitioner why the power of attorney agent to depose on behalf of him in the suit proceedings. The Court below also observed that there is no reason given by the petitioner to show why he is withdrawing himself from giving evidence. This document has been prepared particularly on a blank papers containing signatures of more than one person and the agent was authorized to represent the petitioner in any Court where the suit is