Power of attorney representation is permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure, and delay in filing for such representation is justified if defendants are unable to appear due to age or health issues.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram in I.A.No.7 of2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2020 dated 19.10.2024.

2. O.S.No.162 of 2020 has been preferred by the civil revision petitioner seeking for the relief of declaration and for consequential reliefs. The respondents 1 & 2 are the defendants 1 & 2 in the suit. On account of the fact that the defendants 1 & 2 are not in a position to appear in person and depose before the Court due to old age and sickness, they appointed one Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar as their power of attorney. Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar, in exercise of the power, filed an application under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit him to represent his father, the 2^nd defendant as the power of attorney and also to file a proof affidavit on his behalf. This application was numbered as I.A.No.7 of 2024.

3. The learned Judge ordered notice to the civil revision petitioner/plaintiff and allowed the application. Hence, this revision.

4. Heard Mr.N.Gokula Rao, the civil revision petitioner/party-in-person.

5. Mr.N. Gokula Rao urges that the power of attorney is not aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, the power of attorney should not be permitted to represent the respondents. He further urges that though the suit is of the year 2020, the application came to be filed only in 2024 and hence, it ought not to be allowed. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. , 2005 (2) SCC 217 to press home this point.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.N.Gokula Rao, the party-in-person.

7. In terms of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, it permits a party to be represented by his power of attorney to conduct the matter on his behalf.

8. The respondents 1 & 2 have entered appearance and have filed a detailed written statement. As to whom the defendant wants to appoint his power of attorney cannot be dictated by the plaintiff. It is entirely within the discretion of the defendants, to appoint a person to represent them, in a proceeding. Order III of the C.P.C. proceeding is entirely between the Court and the party.

9. With respect to the submission on delay, it has to be pointed out that the defendants 1 & 2, not being in a position to appear before the Court on account of their sickness and age and wanted to appoint their power of attorney to depose on their behalf, when the matter was listed for evidence.

10. Though the suit is of the year 2020, it has come up for evidence of the defendants only in 2024. At that stage, the respondents could have filed a petition under Order III of the C.P.C. Therefore, I do not find the delay as a ground to reject the petition.

11. With respect to the plea that the power of attorney is not in a position to speak about the nature of the documents, it is for the plaintiff to take advantage of the same at the time of examination. If the power of attorney is not aware of the facts or is not in a position to depose on certain aspects, it will certainly be advantageous to the plaintiff. On that ground too, I cannot reject a power of attorney's petition.

12. In the light of the above discussions, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.