ORDER:

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2023, passed in I.A.No.91 of 2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Sullupet, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2) The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the present Civil Revision Petition.

3) The son of the petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondent –

defendant, his men, agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The respondent-defendant filed counter and contested the suit. When the matter is coming up for cross-examination of D.W.1, the father of the plaintiff filed I.A.No.91 of 2023, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff / son executed General Power of Attorney, dated 25.03.2023, in his favour to prosecute the case / suit on his behalf and also to depose. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-defendant opposing the said application. The learned Trail Judge dismissed the I.A.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner–GPA holder of the plaintiff, submits that the order under challenge is highly erroneous and unsustainable. He submits that the learned Trial Judge misunderstood the purpose for which the petition is filed. Elaborating the said submission, learned counsel states that the plaintiff is a deaf and dumb person and in view of the same he executed GPA in favour of his father to prosecute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. He submits that since the petitioner being the father of the plaintiff is looking after the affairs of the property, there is nothing wrong in prosecution of the suit by him and the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the said application on the premise that if the plaintiff is deaf and dumb the procedure contemplated under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act-1872, can be adopted. Making the said submissions the learned counsel seeks to set aside the order under challenge. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Man Kaur (deceased by Lrs.,) v Hartar Sing Sangha1.

5) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant material on record, including the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.12 of 2016, submits that the petitioner’s son filed the said suit independently and if he is a deaf and dumb person the suit would have been filed by the present petitioner, as a G.P.A. He also submits that the petitioner herein was examined as P.W.1 and the plaintiff side evidence was closed after examination of P.W.2. At the time of D.W.1’s cross-examination, the petitioner herein filed the above application seeking to prosecute the suit as GPA holder of his son / plaintiff and also to depose on behalf of the plaintiff as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A. He submits that the petitioner, who gave evidence as P.W.1, made several admissions and the present application is filed only to cover up the lacunas in his evidence as P.W.1. He submits that the learned Trial Court

1 2010 AIR SCW 6198

after considering the matter in the right perspective, dismissed the I.A. by assigning cogent reasons and in said circumstances interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.

6) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner’ son filed O.S.No.12 of 2016 on his own, and in such circumstances, the circumstances under which the GPA was executed in favour of the petitioner should have been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. in question. However, a bold affidavit was filed stating that the petitioner’s son, who is plaintiff in the above suit, executed GPA to prosecute the case on his behalf and also to depose. Nothing is divulged with regard to disability of the petitioner’s son or that being a deaf and