The cancellation of a power of attorney must be communicated to the agent for it to be effective; subsequent representation can proceed under a new power of attorney.

COMMON ORDER

C.R.P.No.501 of 2020 had been filed against the order of dismissal passed in I.A.No.161 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2015 on the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, dismissing the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner under Order IX, Rule 7 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the order passed against the second Defendant on 01.10.2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2015.

2. C.R.P.No.1352 of 2020 had been filed against the order of dismissal passed in I.A.No.160 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2015 on the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, dismissing the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner/Petitioner under Order III, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking to permit the Petitioner Pattammal, as Power of Attorney, to prosecute the case on behalf of her husband/second Defendant.

3.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Respondent herein as Plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur District, for specific performance of contract for sale. The second Defendant in the suit is the husband of the Revision Petitioner. The second Defendant is in Abroad because of his avocation. Therefore, he executed a power of attorney in favour of the first Defendant. The first Defendant has executed a sale agreement deed in favour of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.21 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur. Subsequently, the Defendants in the suit were set ex parte. Therefore, the wife of the second Defendant had filed I.A.No.160 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2015 seeking to permit her to prosecute the case on behalf of the second Defendant and also filed I.A.No.161 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2015 seeking to set aside the ex parte order passed in O.S.No.21 of 2015. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur by order dated 29.11.2019 dismissed the petitions stating that the Petitioner cannot file the petition without revoking the power of attorney deed already executed by her husband in favour of the first Defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner had approached this Court.

4.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the provision of Order III, Rule 2 of C.P.C. and also Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act. The power of attorney petition had been filed only to prosecute the case and not for the maintenance of the property. While so, the curable defect can be set off by the Court. The Court had dismissed the petition. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur, dismissing I.A.Nos.160 and 161 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2015 and allow the petitions.

5. The learned counsel for the Respondent by way of reply submits that the first Defendant in the suit is none other than the brother of the second Defendant. He had executed the sale agreement deed in favour of the Plaintiff. Based on which, the Plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of contract for sale of property. Without cancelling the power of attorney deed in favour of the first Defendant, the wife of the Second Defendan/Revision Petitioner herein had filed petition under Order IX, Rule 3 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to prosecute the case on behalf of the second Defendant. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur had dismissed the petitions. The reasons stated by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvarur dismissing the petitions do not warrant any interference of this Court. If the Principal had revoked the deed of power of attorney in favour of the first Defendant and then granted power of attorney in favour of the wife, then under such circumstances, the petitions can be allowed. Here is the case, without filing any documents the Petitioner/wife of the second Defendant had sought permission of the Court to implead her as power of attorney of the second Defendant and proceed with the case. Therefore, the well reasoned orders of the learned District Munsi