Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62778
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
T.M LOUIS – Appellant
Versus
OUR LADY OF LIFE CATHOLIC CHURCH – Respondent
OP(C)/1564/2022
P.M. JOSHI, SIJI K. PAUL, BONNY BABY, VISHNU PRASAD, SINEESH K.M.
A representative in legal proceedings must provide written authorization to act on behalf of a principal to ensure the legitimacy of the representation.
Headnote:
Authorization - Execution Proceedings - Civil Procedure Code, Order 3 Rule 1 & Civil Rules of Practice, Rule 22 - The court emphasized the necessity for proper authorization when a representative acts on behalf of a principal in legal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the first Judgment Debtor in an execution petition, challenged the lower court's order allowing a joint trial of two execution petitions. The issue arose due to the second petition being filed by an individual claiming to be a trustee without presenting a proper authorization from the Church.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the trustee failed to provide written authorization as required by applicable rules. It concluded that the order allowing the joint trial cannot stand unless proper authorization is produced.
Issues: Whether the court erred in allowing the application for a joint trial without requisite authorization from the principal represented in the execution petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a representative to proceed in execution matters, they must produce an appropriate authorization document as mandated by the Rules, specifically highlighting the requirement under Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
Final Decision: The original petition is disposed of with directions for authorization compliance.
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed challenging the order in EA No.136/2022 in EP No.38/2019 in OS No.306/2022 (Ext P4) of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Kochi.
2. The skeletal facts, for the determination of the original petition are: the petitioner is the first Judgment Debtor in EP No.38/2019, which is filed by the respondent Church, to realise an amount of Rs.7,79,747/- towards alleged arrears of rent, including interest and cost. The execution petition and the other proceedings were filed by Fr.Dominic Aluvaparambil, representing the Decree Holder Church. The Church has also filed another execution petition as EP No.46/2019 through the same Priest before the same Court. Without seeking leave for substitution of the above Priest, another person named Joseph Praveen, claiming to be one of the trustees of the Church, has filed Ext P2 application for the joint trial of EP Nos. 38 and 46 of 2019. Even though the petitioner filed Ext P3 counter affidavit to Ext P2 application, the court below, by the impugned Ext P4 order, has allowed Ext P2 application. Ext P4 is erroneous and wrong.
Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.P.M Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. Sri.P.M Joshi vehemently argued that the Court ought not to have allowed Ext P2 application, without a proper authorisation issued by the Church being produced, provided under Order 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice . So far as an authorisation letter permitting the present trustee is not produced, Ext P2 application should not have been entertained by the court below.
Hence, Ext P4 may be set aside.
5. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext P4 order.
6. On a perusal of the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that Ext P1 execution petition was filed in the name of Our Lady of Life Catholic Church represented by Fr.Dominic Aluvaparambil. Subsequently, it is seen that Ext P2 application has been filed by Joseph Praveen, claiming to be one of the trustees of the Church. It is not discernible from Ext P4 order as to whether the present trustee has filed any authorisation letter before the court below along with Ext P2 application.
7. Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice specifically stipulates that while an agent makes an appearance for the Principal, he has to file either a power of attorney or a written authority authorising him to act on behalf of the Principal.
8. In the above legal and factual matrix, I am of the view that, Ext P4 order can take effect only after the present trustee, who has filed Ext P2 application, produces a written authorization as per the mandate under Rule 22 of the Civil Rules of Practice to the satisfaction of the court below that he is authorized to represent the Church. If such an authorization is filed, the court below would be at liberty to proceed with the joint trial of the above execution petitions.
With the above observation, the original petition is disposed of.
