IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.5963 of 2026

1. K.Mariammal W/o. Krishnan Rep by her Power of Attorney Agent K.Panneer Selvam S/o.

Krishnan Old No. 24, New No.21 Perumal Koil Street Alapakkam, Porur Tiruvallur Dist. Chennai 116 Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. C.Dhanasekar S/o. Late. L.Chandran No.11, Periya Senkodu Perumal Kovil Street Chennai

051

2.C.Gopishankar S/o. Late. L.Chandran No.11, Periya Senkodu Perumal Kovil Street Chennai

051

3.C.Ravikumar S/o. Late. L.Chandran No.11, Periya Senkodu Perumal Kovil Street Chennai

051

4.M.Dhatchayini W/o. Munusamy No. 5 Aandar Kuppan Mettu St Senkodu, Chennai 59

5.K.Tamilselvi W/o. Kumar No. Venkatachelapuram, Ambatur Chennai 53

6.M.Pushpa W/o. Mohan C/206 4th North Street Aandar Kuppam, Kundrathur Shri Metha Nagar Kundrathur, Chennai 69 Respondent(s)

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair Order and Decreetal Order dated 05.01.2026 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in OS No. 96 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Thiruvallur at Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

For Petitioner(s): MR.N.Nithianandam For Respondent(s):

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in OS No.

96 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, the revision petitioner / plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an application under Section Order III Rule 2 of CPC, seeking permission to be represented by a Power of Attorney holder, but the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge stating that even though the plaintiff is aged, she can be examined through an Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. It is admitted that the suit is one for partition and is now ripe for trial.

The plaintiff is aged about 75 years and she wants to prosecute the case through her son by executing a power of attorney. However, the Trial Court dismissed the petition without properly appreciating her age. The son is also entitled to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

4. Considering that the plaintiff is aged about 75 years, her son is entitled to give evidence as Power of Attorney holder. The Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that she can be examined through an Advocate Commissioner, which is unwarranted. If the son is able to depose the facts before the Court, he is entitled to give evidence as Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff.

5. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and I.A. No. 3 of 2025 in OS No. 96 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District, is allowed. Liberty is granted to the respondent to raise all defences regarding the evidence of the Power of Attorney before the Trial Court, either by filing an additional written statement or at the time of cross-examination.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

16-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri To

1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Thiruvallur at Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

2.The Section Officer, VR section, High Court of Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri

16-03-2026