C O M M O N O R D E R

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

C.R.P.No.4742 of 2017 is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2017 made in I.A.No.1017 of 2017 in I.A.No.530 of 2014 in O.S.No.588 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu.

C.R.P.No.4743 of 2017 is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2017 made in I.A.No.1019 of 2017 in I.A.No.844 of 2012 in O.S.No.588 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu.

2.The issues and the parties involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

3.The petitioners are plaintiff in O.S.No.588 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu. They filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14.11.2004, against one Major Harbhajan Singh Sandhu. The said defendant remained exparte and exparte decree was passed on 17.04.2008. The petitioners filed E.P.No.28 of 2008 for execution of sale deed and sale deed dated 15.07.2009 was executed by the Court on behalf of the defendant Major Harbhajan Singh Sandhu, which was registered as Document No.2973/2009 at Sub Registrar Office, Thiruporur. The petitioners filed E.P.No.10 of 2012 for delivery of possession of suit property and the same is pending. The respondent herein, son of the defendant, filed 4 applications through his Power Agent viz., Harish G.Dave, in I.A.No.842 of 2012 to recognize Harish G.Dave, as power agent of the respondent, I.A.No.843 of 2012 to implead the respondent by power agent Harish G.Dave, as party 2nd defendant in the suit, I.A.No.844 of 2012 to condone the delay of 1445 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree passed on 17.04.2008 and unnumbered application to set aside the exparte decree dated 17.04.2008 in the suit. In the said applications filed by the power agent, the petitioners filed counter affidavits, contending that the power agent cannot represent the principals in respect of the events that took place prior to execution of sale deed and application for impleading under Order I Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C., is not maintainable. While so, the counsel for the power agent made endorsement “As the Principal Gurdeep Singh Sandhu has came from Muscat this petition by Power agent is not pressed. May be dismissed” in I.A.Nos. 842 of 2014, filed to recognise Harish G.Dave as power agent and “This petition may be dismissed as not pressed as the principal has filed a petition under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C.” in I.A.No.843 of 2014, filed to implead the respondent as party 2nd defendant in the suit. Recording the endorsement, those two I.A.s were dismissed.

4.The respondent filed I.A.No.530 of 2014 to implead himself as party, without filing petition to set aside the exparte decree and application to condone the delay in filing the petition to implead him. I.A.No.844 of 2012, filed to condone the delay and unnumbered I.A., filed to set aside the exparte decree filed by the power agent cannot be continued, as power agent was not recognised. The petitioners further stated that the respondent did not file any vakalat along with I.A.No.530 of 2014. Without authority, the counsel for the respondent has no locus standi to continue I.A.No.844 of 2012 or to proceed with I.A.No.530 of 2014. I.A.No.530 of 2014 filed by the respondent has to be rejected as he has not filed any petition to set aside the exparte decree. The petitioners further submitted that only the defendant can file a petition to set aside the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. The respondent herein is not a person to depose about the exparte decree passed against his father. The respondent filed I.A.No.653 of 2015 to amend the affidavit in I.A.No.844 of 2012, filed to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree and in unnumbered