C.R.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 26.09.2023

Delivered on : 20.10.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

C.R.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2019

and C.M.P.(MD)No.6794 of 2019

Raju

... Petitioner /Respondent/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.N.Ramdoss

2.Manjula Ramdoss ... Respondents / Petitioners / Defendants

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the order, dated

28.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.32 of 2019 in O.S.No.305 of 2017,

pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam and to set

aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Bharathan

For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil

for Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef

1/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2019

ORDER

The revision petitioner herein is the respondent/plaintiff, and

the respondents herein are the petitioners / defendants before the Court

below.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred

according to their litigative status in the suit.

3. It appears that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the

respondent herein arraying them as defendants represented through their

power of attorney one Mr. Nagoor Gani and sought for a relief of

specific performance. Admittedly, no notice was served to the

respondent herein namely to Mr.N.Ramdoss and Mrs.Manjula Ramdoss

for their appearance in the suit in O.S.No.228 of 2002. According to

the plaintiff, since the defendants were represented through power

agent, under the contract of agency, the notice to the power of attorney

holder of the defendants is sufficient.

4. However, the trial Court found that the notice to the

original defendants is essential, and that in view of no notice served

upon the defendants, the Court below condoned the delay of 2128 days

in filing the application to set aside ex-parte decree. Aggrieved with the

2/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2019

said order, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of the instant Civil

Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that, the

very order passed by the Court below is erroneous. The original

defendants Mr.N.Ramdoss and Mrs.Manjula Ramdoss has executed

power of attorney in favour of one Mr.Nagoor Gani. According to the

plaintiff, the agency is coupled with interest, as such, contended that

notice in the suit to the power agent is sufficient, for seeking the relief

of specific performance. It is the further submission of the plaintiff

that, they did not know about the alleged cancellation of the power of

attorney. Therefore, contended that as long as the execution of the

cancellation of power of attorney is not put on notice to the plaintiff, the

very framing of the suit, as framed in the present plaint, is perfectly in

order, and that since the notice have been served upon the agent, the

notice to the Principal is deemed to have been served. The learned

counsel for the plaintiff would strenuously submit that the order passed

by the trial Court in condoning the delay is perverse and prayed to

interfere with the same.

3/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD)No.1211 of 2019

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant would

vehemently submit that under Order 3 of the C.P.C, unless the Court is

permitted the power agent to represent the Principal, mere reference of

the party to the suit represented through power agent will in no way

construed as an effective notice to the defendants. The learned counsel

would further submit that, they came to know about the exparte decree

only at the later point of time, and that immediately they have moved an

application, to set aside the exparte decree at once, on the next day,

namely, from the date of their knowledge. However in the Civil

Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.1831 o