A decree holder can represent another in execution proceedings through an agent, provided the legitimacy of the power of attorney is established.

ORDER

This civil revision petition arises out of the order and decretal order passed by the learned District Judge at Karaikal, in EA.No.6 of 2012 in unnumbered E.P of 2012 in O.S.No.8 of 1987 dated 30.04.2013.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

3. O.S.No.8 of 1987 is a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property, for recovery of possession of the same, and to pay costs and mense profits. After contest, the suit came to be decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal on 14.06.1988. The papers reveal that an appeal was preferred to this Court in AS.No.301 of 1999. The appeal was dismissed on 15.03.2007.

4. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed the present execution petition to take possession of the properties. Along with the execution petition, the second decree holder took out EA.No.6 of 2012. This was an application seeking to permit him to represent the seventh decree holder as his power agent. The specific plea in the affidavit is that a general power of attorney executed on 20.05.2011, before a notary public at Karaikal and that it is still in force. Together with the affidavit, the second petitioner/decree holder also filed the original deed of power of attorney.

5. The learned Judge, instead of allowing the application, after perusal of the power of attorney and affidavit, issued notice to the judgment debtors. It is this procedure that had been adopted by the learned Judge, which had resulted in the revision.

6. The judgment debtors filed a counter stating that the seventh decree holder had already appointed the fifth decree holder as her agent, and therefore, the court should not allow the application. In addition, they also pleaded that they have presented a review application to review the judgment and decree of this Court in AS.No.301 of 1990 and therefore, the execution petition is premature.

7. The learned Trial Judge, after perusal of the affidavit and counter, and after hearing the argument of the parties, allowed the application.

Hence, this revision.

8. Mr.G.Inbaraj representing Mr.R.Thirugnanam states that they have returned the papers to the judgment debtors. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners 2 and 3. I heard Mr.U.Muhammad representing Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmad for the first respondent. I have gone through the records.

9. An application under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks permission of the Court for one person to represent another party. In this case, one decree holder has filed an application stating that another decree holder has permitted him to prosecute the petition on his behalf. In fact, the execution petition can be presented by one decree holder, if he takes possession for and on behalf of the other decree holders also. Be that as it may, in order to avoid any procedural issues, the second decree holder seems to have taken power of attorney of the seventh decree holder.

10. As to how and whom one decree holder want to prosecute the execution petition, is not within the dictates of the judgment debtors. Neither party can dictate as to who his/her adversary should appoint as an agent, nor does the court have a say as regards the contract of agency that has been entered into between the principal and agent. The decree holder has produced the power of attorney, and the court, if it is satisfied with the genuineness of the d