O R D E R

This Civil Revision petition has been filed to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 01.02.2020 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.252 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Hosur.

2.The brief fact of the case is that originally the suit was filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.252 of 1997 under Order VII Rule 1 to 6 Code of Civil Procedure before the District Munsiff Court, Hosur to declare the title of the plaintiffs to the suit properties described in 'A' Schedule and marked as ABCD and AEFG in the plaint sketch and for permanent injunction directing the defendant and his men from further putting up construction in the 'A' Schedule property; for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the illegal construction put up in the 'A' Schedule property and also to remove the windows put up adjacent to the 'B' Schedule property. Subsequently, I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners before the District Munsiff Court, Hosur for a prayer to permit them to be represented by the Special Power of Attorney Holder and also to permit the Power of Attorney Holder to conduct the case on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs. By order dated 01.02.2020, the District Munsif Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground that if the petitioners are suffering from health related problem and unable to appear before the Court, they may apply for appointment of Commissioner for the evidence, when they have appointed Power of Attorney Agent and seeking permission to represent through the said Power of Attorney Agent under Order III Rule 1 of CPC. He submitted that the trial Court failed to note that the recognized agent of the parties can represent the case and shall get leave of the Court under Order III Rule 1 & 2 of CPC provided the agent shall have personal knowledge about the case.

4.He further submitted that the Court below failed to understand that only at the time of deposing evidence the best knowledge about the case of the Power of Attorney holder can be tested. The trial Court below failed to note that the first petitioner is very old lady and her sister-in- law, the second petitioner herself is aged 60 years who is suffering from diabetes and she cannot travel and attend the Court and also Advocate office regularly and hence both the petitioners executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second petitioner's husband to represent them in the case.

5.Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a counter in I.A.No.1 of 2019, wherein it has been stated that the whole exercise attempted by the plaintiffs is to avoid entering into the witness box and subject themselves to rigors of cross examination. None of the petitioners herein have filed or produced any medical documents to prove the reason for which they allegedly executed the Power of Attorney. The supporting affidavit filed by them in Court is also blissfully vague on this front. Further the Power of Attorney has no locus standi to depose on their behalf and such if they do not seek to examine themselves as witness in the suit. Facts in the issue cannot be effectively adjudicated upon. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 (3) CTC 128, wherein it has held that Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose for principal in regard of matters of which only the principal is entitled to be cross examined. On this score also the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7.On perusal of records, it is seen that the suit was filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.252 of 1997 under Order VII Rule 1 to 6 Code of Civil Procedure before the District Munsiff Court, Hosur. Thereafter, I.A.No.1 of 2019 wa