The appointment of a power of attorney by a party is a procedural matter not subject to adversarial objections.

ORDER

The defendants are the Civil Revision petitioners. For the sake of convenience, they will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

2.The plaintiff presented a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3^rd share. This suit has been received by the learned Subordinate Judge at Paramakudi as O.S.No.57 of 2022. Pending the suit, she took out an application in I.A.No.7 of 2024 under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of the Court to permit her son, one Mohamed Salim to represent her, as her power of attorney. Though it is a matter between the Court and the party alone, the learned Subordinate Judge had called upon the defendants to file a counter.

3.The defendants filed a counter stating that the plaintiff is habituated in signing her name in Tamil, whereas, the power of attorney, that has been given by the plaintiff to her son and agent has been written in stylish English.

4.Since a doubt had been created in the minds of the Court, the learned Subordinate Judge summoned the plaintiff to appear before him.

5.As directed, the plaintiff also appeared before the learned Subordinate Judge. On a query from the Court as to whether she has appointed her son as her power agent, she has answered in affirmative. Recording the same, the learned Judge has allowed the application under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code.

6.Seemingly aggrieved by the said order, the defendants 1 to 4 are on Revision.

7.I heard Mr.J.Barathan, for the Civil Revision Petitioner.

8.Mr.J.Barathan, urges that the defendants are not aggrieved by the fact that the plaintiff has appointed her son as her power of attorney. They are aggrieved by the receipt of the power of attorney, as an evidence of the signature of the plaintiff. This, he states, is perhaps a litigation strategy of the plaintiff to get over any documents, that might be projected by the defendants, which contain her actual signature. He states that the Court ought to have presented the power of attorney document produced along with I.A. No.7 of 2024 to the plaintiff and should have called upon her to answer whether the signature found therein is her signature or not. This, he states, would have confirmed to the satisfaction of the Court, whether the power of attorney had, in fact, been signed by her.

9.I have carefully considered the submissions of Mr.J.Barathan. I have gone through the records

10.An application under Order 3 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly between the Court and the party. (See Yashwin Krishnakanth.S vs. R.Sridevi, C.R.P.No.6248 of 2025, dated 06.01.2026) The defendants, who have an adverse say against the plaintiff, cannot object to a power of attorney agent being appointed by the plaintiff. Adversarial system cannot be stretched to such an extent that an adverse party dictates to the other party as to how he or she is to conduct the litigation.

11.Since a doubt had been raised by the defendants, as regards the actual execution of the document, the learned Judge has been abundantly cautious and called upon the plaintiff to appear before him to give a statement on the power of attorney.

12.The learned Judge has recorded in the order that he is satisfied with the statement given by the plaintiff. The buck should have stopped there. At best, this is a procedural order and such orders, even if are erroneous, are normally not susceptible to be reviewed in exercise of powers either under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power of revision is not meant to correct all procedural errors that might have entered in the proceedings of the Court. It is meant only to interfere where the rights and liabi