Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/1385/2026 of Sukanya Raja Vs R. Malika Raja on 9 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 09/09/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 1385 of 2026
{CNR: HCMD010656842026}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD)Nos.6766 & 12166 of 2026
1.Sukanya
2.Minor A.Aryan Raja
3.Minor A.Anuj Raja ... Petitioners/Petitioners/
Defendants
(The petitioners 2 & 3 are represented by their natural guardian and mother, the first petitioner)
Vs
R.Mallika Raja
... Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
PRAYER :-
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition by settring aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2024 dated 27.03.2026 on the file of Additional District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Anvith Kumar, Advocate, for Mr.P.Saravanan, Advocate.
For Respondent : M/s.Sudharshana Sunder, Advocate.
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 seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.03.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.111 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, and consequently to allow the said application.
2. The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.No.111 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 under Order III Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to recognise the Power of Attorney dated 26.07.2024 and to permit them to prosecute and contest the case through their Power Agent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondent/plaintiff, who is the mother of the deceased, filed a suit for partition against the revision petitioners/defendants, who are the wife and children of the deceased. After her marriage with the deceased, the first revision petitioner/first defendant settled in the United States of America and is presently residing there along with revision petitioners 2 and 3. Therefore, she is not in a position to appear before the Court in person and contest the case. Hence, she filed the said application through her Power Agent, seeking permission to contest the case through him. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the petition.
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter stating that the Power Agent had no personal knowledge of the transactions in question and, therefore, was not in a position to depose about the events that had occurred in the United States of America. It was further stated that a copy of the Power of Attorney had not been served upon her. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. After hearing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition by order dated
27.03.2026, relying upon the following observations made by this Court in M. Arjunan v. Arunachala Goundar, in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1995 of 2005, dated 22.09.2006 :- “ This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed Under Order 3 Rule 3 and Section 151 of C.P.C.,
7. … In respect of acts committed with personal knowledge, Power of Attorney cannot speak on behalf of the Principal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not permissible to permit the Power of Attorney to represent the principal to appear and let in evidence in respect of acts of personal knowledge.”
6. While dismissing the petition, the learned Trial Court held that the petitioners/defendants had not approached the Court with a bona fide intention and that the Power Agent had no personal knowledge about the happenings that had taken place in the United States of America.
7. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 27.03.2026, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants submitted that, since the first revision petitioner/first defendant is employed in the USA, she is not in a position to appear before the Court on each and every hearing and contest the case. Therefore, she executed a Power of Attorney in favour of her uncle on 26.07.2024, authorising him to appear on her behalf and contest the case. However, he undertook that, at the time of adducing evidence, the first revision petitioner would appear before the Court and adduce evidence.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, during the course of arguments, submitted that the revision petitioners/defendants had not produced any affidavit to establish that the first revision petitioner/first defendant herself had entrusted the Power Agent to appear on her behalf. In response to the said submission, the revision petitioners/defendants now admit that they had not filed an affidavit to that effect.
10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11. Taking into consideration the fact that the first revision petitioner/first defendant is employed and settled in the USA, there are practical difficulties for her to appear before the Court and contest the case. However, she has executed a Power of Attorney authorising her Power Agent to appear and contest the case on her behalf. It is true that, under Order III Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the first revision petitioner/first defendant has to seek permission of the Court by filing an affidavit authorising her Power Agent to appear on her behalf, so as to enable the other side to ascertain that she had entrusted the Power Agent with the authority to appear on her behalf and that no prejudice would be caused if the Power Agent is permitted to appear and contest the case. The first revision petitioner/first defendant has also undertaken that she would appear before the Court and adduce evidence at the time of trial.
12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the respondent/plaintiff is an elderly lady and, therefore, this Court may issue a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial within a stipulated period.
13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the first revision petitioner/first defendant is directed to file an affidavit before the Trial Court and seek permission to appear through her Power Agent. The Trial Court shall consider and permit the same, subject to the condition that the first revision petitioner/first defendant shall appear before the Court and adduce evidence at the time of trial. The Power Agent shall also be permitted to file the written statement on behalf of the first revision petitioner/first defendant. After framing the issues, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial at the earliest, without any further delay, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.09.2026 DSS To
1. The Additional District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur.
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
R. POORNIMA,J DSS
ORDER
IN CRP(MD). No.1385 of 2026 and CMP(MD)Nos.6766 & 12166 of 2026 Date : 09/09/2026