ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in

I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.109 of 2021 dated 24.08.2023, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bodinayakkanur, allowing the application filed under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.109 of 2021

against the revision petitioners/defendants, claiming permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/defendants and their men from interfering with the respondent/plaintiff's possession, agricultural operations and from trespassing or causing damages to the suit property.

3. The respondent/plaintiff, in the body of the plaint, has specifically observed that his son Suresh has executed a general power of attorney in his favour and on that basis, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and only on the basis of the said power of attorney, he has filed the above suit.

4. Generally, the person, who files the suit and claims the reliefs, will be shown as the plaintiff and if he is represented by his power of attorney agent, then the cause title would be

(name of the plaintiff)

represented by his power of attorney agent

(name of the power agent)”

5. In the case on hand, a perusal of the contents of the plaint would reveal that Suresh, S/o.G.Jayaram is the plaintiff and he has filed the suit through his power agent Jayaram, who is none other than his own father, but in the short and long cause title, the power agent has been shown as the plaintiff and as such, the way in which the plaintiff was described is not proper.

6. Pending suit, the said power agent has filed an application under

Order 3 Rule 2 C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to prosecute the suit as power agent of his son Suresh, the principal. The revision petitioners/defendants have filed a counter statement raising serious objections stating that the power agent has deliberately failed to file an application for permission to sue in the capacity of power agent of the owner and the said failure is fatal and goes to the root of the matter and that the same cannot be remedied by filing an application subsequently to recognize the power.

7. It is their further defence that filing an application under Order 3

Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for recognizing the power is the condition precedent for numbering the plaint, that since the same was not done, the Court ought to have returned the plaint, that the very numbering of the plaint is against law and that the very filing of the above application is an abuse of process of Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners by quoting a proverb that no one can put a cart before the horse and start a journey has argued that the permission application now filed ought to have been filed along with the plaint and the trial Court ought to have taken the plaint on file only after granting permission in the application filed under Order 3 Rule 2 C.P.C. and that the respondent/plaintiff cannot be allowed to file the application at this point of time.

9. The learned trial Judge, after considering the objection raised by the revision petitioners/defendants, by holding that no legal provision mandates for such a permission, allowed the application and thereby permitting the power agent to prosecute the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the defendants have preferred the present revision.

10. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer Order 3 Rule 2

C.P.C.,

“2. Recognized agents.- The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are-

(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;

(b) persons carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade