Madras High Court
CRP/5244/2026 of J.Srinivasan Vs K.Venkatesan on 7 October 2026
CRP No. 5244 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 5244 of 2026
and CMP No. 22794 of 2026
J.Srinivasan
Rep by its Power Agent K.Ragavel
S/o.K.Jagannathan.
No.6, 6th Cross Street, C.I.T. Colony,
Mylapore,
Chennai-600004
..Petitioner
Vs
1. K.Venkatesan
S/o. Karuppaiah.
2. R.Nandhini
W/o. Venkatesan.
3. R.Umadevi
W/o. Redappa,
4. R.Jayaraj
S/o. Rachappa,
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 16.04.2026 in IA.No.1 of 2025 in OS.No.262 of 2023 on the file of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate at Thiruporur For Petitioner :
Mr. M.Vaidhiyanathan
For Respondents :
Mr.H.Mohammed Farook [R1]
CRP No. 5244 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.04.2026 made in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in O.S.No.262 of 2023 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruporur, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order III Rule 2 CPC to permit the power agent to prosecute the case further, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and carefully perused the material available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.262 of 2023 seeking for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property. The suit was at the stage of trial. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.NO.262 of 2023 under Order III Rule 2 CPC to permit the plaintiff to be represented through his power of attorney agent and to prosecute the suit.
CRP No. 5244 of 2026
4. The court below has dismissed the said application on the ground that there is no reason for the plaintiff to appoint power of attorney agent to prosecute the suit and that considering the nature of relief that has been sought for by the plaintiff, there are certain facts, which are within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff, which cannot be spoken to by the power of attorney. In view of the same, the Court below found that there was no reason to appoint power of attorney agent to prosecute the suit and accordingly dismissed the application.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the plaintiff has chosen to appoint a power of attorney agent to represent him in the suit and to prosecute the suit. Whether the power of attorney agent will be able to depose effectively and whether the facts of the case are within the personal knowledge of the power of attorney agent, are all issues that will emerge as the trial progresses. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the title over the property and the plaintiff is taking the chance by appointing a power of attorney agent to represent him in the suit. Therefore, the defendant cannot have any say in deciding or determining as to how the plaintiff will prosecute the case.
CRP No. 5244 of 2026
7. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for an authorised agent or recognised agent to appear on behalf of the principal. Therefore, there is no statutory embargo provided under the CPC for preventing the plaintiff from prosecuting the suit through his agent.
8. The court below has pre-empted and has come to a conclusion that agent will not have the personal knowledge of the facts of the case and therefore, the Court below has proceeded to dismiss the application.
9. This is not even an issue to be considered by the Court below in an application filed under Order III Rule 2 CPC. The Court below went beyond its remit while deciding the application.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below suffers from perversity warranting interference of this Court. In view of the same, the order dated 16.04.2026 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.262 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruporur is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
CRP No. 5244 of 2026
Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014 and the suit has already reached the stage of trial, there shall be a direction to the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruporur to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.262 of 2023 within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mp To
1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruporur.
2. V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
CRP No. 5244 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. mp CRP No. 5244 of 2026 07-10-2026