Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 32988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Poornima, J
John Premkumar – Appellant
Versus
Ganesan – Respondent
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.94 & 95 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.P.Senthil
For the Respondents: Mrs.J.Anandhavalli
The holder of a power of attorney lacks independent standing in court and cannot claim rights over the subject matter involved in the case.
Headnote:The petitioners filed Civil Revision Petitions under Section 227 of the Constitution seeking to challenge the order dismissing their applications to implead themselves as plaintiffs. The court emphasized that a power of attorney does not confer independent rights over the subject matter. The trial court previously ordered retrial, acknowledging that the withdrawal by one plaintiff should not dismiss the case entirely. The petitions were dismissed as the petitioner lacked standing to claim rights under the power of attorney. The final verdict stated, 'Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petitions were initiated challenging previous court orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the rights and interests related to the power of attorney and withdrawal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's observations on the implications of power of attorney and dismissal of applications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. final ruling dismissing the petitions based on lack of standing. (Para 18) |
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 07.01.2019 made in Unnumbered IAs in CFSR.No.6664/2018 (7199/2018) and CFSR.No.6665/2018 (7194/2018) in O.S.No.97 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil.
2. The petitioner filed the above said two applications one with a prayer to implead him as plaintiff and another to transpose the plaintiffs as defendant Nos.2 to 5 respectively.
3. The O.S.No.97/2014 was filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 5, authorizing the petitioner Mr.John Premkumar as power agent for recovery of Rs.14,00,000/- from the 1st respondent / defendant who had failed to repay the amount borrowed by him as per the dishonored cheque. During the pendency of the suit one of the plaintiff requested to withdraw the case and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Against which the Power of Attorney holder preferring a Civil Revision Petition before this High Court by stating that if all the plaintiff in the suit were not willing to withdraw the case but for one plaintiff, the trial Court dismissed the suit as a whole.
5. Therefore, this Court set aside the order passed by observing that the withdrawal of one plaintiff cannot result in dismissal of entire suit proceedings and the trial Court was directed to consider the request made by the plaintiffs, by giving notice to all the parties, including Power of Attorney holder and thereafter proceed with the suit.
6. On the direction of this Court, the trial Court took up the case to file and examined Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and based on evidence the petitioner came forward with two petitions to implead him as party and to transpose the plaintiffs as defendants 2 to 5. Both the petitions were dismissed in SR stage (number), against which he filed these Civil Revision Petitions on the following among other grounds :
1) That the learned District Judge committed a serious error in law in dismissing both the applications without adverting to the specific circumstances under which the applications came to be filed having regard to the conduct of the respondents 2 to 5.
2) That the learned District Judge completely overlooked in the earlier revision in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2094 of 2016, this Court specifically directed the learned District Judge to issue notice to all parties and after affording opportunity to dispose the application on merits. However, admittedly the learned District Judge has once again dismissed the applications at the threshold which is contrary to the specific directions of this Court.
3) That the learned District Judge failed to advert that it is an admitted fact the cheque was issued only in the name of the petitioner herein on his personal capacity and it is the petitioner who has right to claim the amount, accordingly the present suit has been filed.
4) That the learned District Judge erred in law in not adverting to the entire averments of the plaint as a whole, which only leads to an irresistible conclusion that the earlier suit was filed only by the petitioner herein and the respondents 2 to 4 have been impleaded only as a formal parties in order to avoid any technical objections.
5) That the learned District Judge further failed to advert that admittedly the 5th respondent herein K.Arul Inbaseeian did not appear before the Court and as such permitting the suit to be withdrawn is impermissible under law.
6) That the learned District Judge completely overlooked that the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner is not a
