ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 10.03.2021 passed in I.A.No. 03 of 2020 in O.S.No. 3934 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the original suit.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants is that the respondent/plaintiff, instead of adducing evidence on her own, permitted her daughter to give evidence on her behalf, on the basis of Authorization Letter dated 08.01.2020. It is further stated that the plaintiff's daughter has to get Power of Attorney recognized under Order III Rule 2(a) of CPC., to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court below has not passed any order, under Rule XVI (2) of Civil Rules of Practice to authorize the plaintiff's daughter viz., K. Shanthi to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and further K.Shanthi had already adduced evidence in her individual capacity. Hence, the plaintiff's daughter cannot be permitted to be examined on behalf of the plaintiff as PW1, without eschewing the evidence of the plaintiff's evidence already recorded before the court below. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ defendants prayed for allowing of this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of the land and building and for delivery of separate possession of her 1/3 share and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. Due to her old age and health condition, she had authorized her daughter to give evidence on her behalf. She was not in a position to walk continuously and unable to stand, hence, she authorized her daughter to conduct the case. She was also not in a position to execute Power of Attorney due to her health conditions and also due to COVID-19 pandemic situation. Unless she is permitted to conduct the case through her daughter, the plaintiff will be put to great loss and hardship and she prays to dismiss the above revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused materials available on records.

6. It is seen from the records that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 3934 of 2018 before the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, for partition of the land and building situated at Plot No.23, Door No.11, L.B.Road, Kamarajar Nagar and Salai, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600

041, measuring an extent of 79 sq.mt. (i.e. 850 sqft) comprised in S.No.135/1 pt., by metes and bounds, allot 1/3 share in the suit property to her and deliver possession thereof, for passing a final decree and put the plaintiff in possession of her 1/3 share in the said schedule property. The plaintiff also sought for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, encumbering, disposing, leasing, mortgaging etc., of the suit schedule property in any manner at any time without the consent of the plaintiff.

7. The defendants denied all the allegations made in the plaint and strongly objected the suit by way of filing written statement.

8. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, the petitioners/

defendants filed I.A. No. 3 of 2020 under Section 151 of CPC., seeking to eschew the evidence of PW1-K.Shanthi, Wife of K.Kumar, who had adduced evidence on the strength of Ex.A1-Authorization Letter dated 08.01.2020 given by the plaintiff viz., T.Ambiga, Wife of M.Thangasamy, in view of failure in following the procedures contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC, and Civil Rules of Practice. After perusing the records, the trial Court dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated

10.03.2021. It was reasoned by the Court below that Shanthi is none other than the daughter of the plaintiff -