CRP(MD)/2291/2026 of P.Victoriah Jasmine Nirmalad Vs Arockiyam on 3 September 2026

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 10/07/2026 made in I.A No.2 of 2026 in O.S No.81 of 2025 passed by the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is the first defendant before the trial Court, is a party to the suit in O.S.No.81 of 2025 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, for injunction. The petitioner/first defendant entered appearance and filed vakalat on 11/08/2025. Thereafter, he filed a written statement on 13/10/2025 along with a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The same was returned by the trial Court with a direction to file a petition for recognition of the power agent. Accordingly, he filed a petition for recognition on 19/12/2025. The same was returned several times and, on 05/03/2026, it was again returned with an endorsement stating as follows:- “Original or certified copy of power of attorney document to be filed. Hence returned. Time 15 days.” Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CRP(MD)No.866 of 2026. This Court, after taking note of the same, passed the following order:- “3. A perusal of the return shows that each time, the Registry of the District Munsif Court at Nilakkottai has been giving a new reason not to number the application. It is not known under which provision of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Civil Rules of Practice, the Registry of the District Munsif Court at Nilakkottai seems to invoke a non-existent power of making returns by installments.

4. I further find it surprising that notice is ordered in the power of attorney application to the other side. It has been held by this Court on more than one occasion that an application under Order III Rule 2 of the Code is strictly between the Court and the party and that the other side has no say in the same. I need not dilate here on that error, as the Civil Revision Petitioner has served both the Government Pleader as well as the counsel for the plaintiff in the petition filed under Order III Rule 2 of the Code.

5. The last of the returns is that the original of the power of attorney has to be presented. The registered power of attorney in Document No. 2968/2025 has been presented before this Court. It was only after perusal of the same that the petition in CMP(MD)No.3418 of 2026 came to be ordered by this Court on 13.03.2026.

6. Be that as it may, Mr.K.Dileeban states that a certified copy of the power of attorney will be filed when the petition is re-presented pursuant to the orders of this Court. Once the Court verifies the certified copy, Mr.K.Dileeban shall ensure that the copy is substituted with a photostat copy duly notarised. The learned Judge shall number the application and, if he is satisfied that the agent has been authorised by the principal/first defendant, he shall, without any further delay, order the same.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the certified copy of the document was produced before the trial Court and the same was also reflected in the ‘B’ Diary. However, the trial Court, by order dated 10/07/2026, dismissed the petition for default on the ground that notice of hearing had not been given and that the respondents did not appear to proceed further. The relevant entry in the ‘B’ Diary, however, appears to be inconsistent with the aforesaid order, which reads as follows:- “I.A.No.2 of 2026 is dismissed for default. For production of order copy of the Hon’ble High Court, call on 20.07.2026. I.A.No.2 of 2026. Sufficient time given. Notice of hearing not given. Hence, in the interest of justice, this petition is dismissed for default.”

4. This Court is constrained to note that despite the specific direction issued by this Court on 26/03/2026 and despite a copy of the said order having been communicated to the trial Court on 11/06/2026, with a specific direction to peruse the certified copy and number the application if the requisition was found to be satisfactory, the trial Court appears to have dismissed the petition without complying with the said direction. If such a position is found to be correct upon verification of the records, it would amount to non-compliance with the order passed by this Court. Further, the order dated 10/07/2026 does not appear to disclose any proper or cogent reason for dismissing the petition, particularly in view of the specific direction already issued by this Court.

5. In the circumstances, the Registry was directed to call for a detailed report from the learned Principal District Judge concerned, after perusing the entire original records. Pursuant to the said direction, the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, has submitted a detailed report, on 02/09/2026.

6. It is to be noted that I.A.No.2 of 2026 was filed by the petitioner, who is the first defendant in the suit, seeking recognition of the power of attorney holder to represent him before the Court. The petitioner had initially filed an application in this regard on 19/12/2025.

7. Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permit appearances, applications and acts required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party to be made or done by the recognised agent of such party, subject to the authority conferred upon such agent. A person holding a power of attorney is thus recognized as a person who may make appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the principal, to the extent authorised by the instrument.

8. There is no absolute bar against a party prosecuting or defending a proceeding through a duly authorised power of attorney holder. At the same time, the Court is entitled to examine the nature and extent of the authority conferred under the power of attorney.

9. The authority of a power of attorney holder under Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC is derived from the instrument executed by the principal. The Court does not confer such authority upon the agent. The

Court may, however, determine the extent to which the agent can act in the proceedings. For instance, a power of attorney holder cannot be permitted to depose in respect of matters which are exclusively within the personal knowledge of the principal. The question as to whether the agent can give evidence would necessarily depend upon the nature of the facts sought to be proved and the personal knowledge possessed by the agent.

10. In the present case, the record discloses that the application filed by the petitioner was returned on several occasions between 09/01/2026 and 05/03/2026. Thereafter, by order dated 26/03/2026, this Court directed the petitioner to produce a certified copy of the power of attorney and further directed the trial Court to number the petition without delay if it was satisfied that the power of attorney holder had been duly authorised by the principal/first defendant.

11. The petitioner thereafter produced the certified copy of the power of attorney along with a memo. The application was subsequently numbered as I.A.No.2 of 2026. It was thereafter posted on 23/06/2026 and again on 10/07/2026 under the caption “For production of order copy of the High Court”. On 10/07/2026, the application came to be dismissed for default on the ground that notice of hearing had not been given.

12. This Court is unable to sustain the said order. The application was essentially one seeking recognition of the authority of the power of attorney holder to represent the principal in the proceedings. The trial Court ought to have examined the power of attorney and the extent of authority conferred therein before deciding the application. The mere absence of notice to the opposite party, by itself, could not constitute a sufficient ground to dismiss the application for default, particularly when the application was not one seeking adjudication of any independent substantive right of the opposite party.

13. If the trial Court entertained any doubt regarding the genuineness or execution of the power of attorney, it was open to the Court to call upon the principal or the executant to appear and answer such query, or to adopt such procedure as may be permissible in law. Dismissal of the application solely on the ground that notice of hearing had not been served, without examining the nature of the relief sought and the document produced in support thereof, cannot be sustained.

14. The power of attorney produced in the typed set indicates that it is a registered instrument and that the principal, who is presently residing abroad, has authorised the present power of attorney holder to act on his behalf in Court proceedings and other proceedings relating to his properties. The authority conferred under the instrument has, therefore, to be examined in accordance with its terms.

15. In such circumstances, the impugned order, dated 10/07/2026 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2026 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to represent the principal through the duly authorised power of attorney holder and to file applications, pleadings and documents on behalf of the principal, subject to the extent of authority conferred under the power of attorney.

16. However, the power of attorney holder shall not be permitted to depose in respect of facts which are exclusively within the personal knowledge of the principal. The principal shall be required to enter the witness box and give evidence in respect of matters which are within his/her personal knowledge, as may be necessary in accordance with law. The trial Court shall decide the admissibility and evidentiary value of the evidence sought to be adduced by the power of attorney holder in accordance with the settled principles of law.

17. Before parting with the matter, this Court is constrained to observe that in some cases, Judicial Officers appear to mechanically place their initials or signatures on office returns without carefully examining their contents. A Judicial Officer must bear in mind that the adjudication and orders passed by the Court are the responsibility of the Judicial Officer and not of the office staff.

18. It is the duty of the Judicial Officer to peruse the docket and the office returns and to ensure that the case papers are not repeatedly returned by the office on different occasions with fresh objections or queries which could have been raised at the first instance. If the office finds any defect or deficiency in the papers, all such objections, to the extent possible, shall be pointed out at one time, so that the litigant is not compelled to approach the Court repeatedly for rectification of successive objections.

19. The Judicial Officers are, therefore, directed to carefully peruse the office returns before affixing their initials or signatures thereon. The practice of mechanically approving office returns without examining their contents shall be avoided. In appropriate cases, where the records disclose that case papers have been repeatedly returned by the office by raising successive objections which ought reasonably to have been raised together, the concerned authority shall examine the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with the applicable rules.

20. The trial Courts are also reminded that procedural requirements are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to cause unnecessary hardship to litigants. Applications for numbering of suits and interlocutory applications should, therefore, be dealt with expeditiously, particularly where the Court itself has already issued directions for their numbering.

21. The trial Court shall consequently consider the plight of the litigants and ensure that there is no avoidable delay in numbering suits, applications and other proceedings. The Registry/Office shall also ensure that defects and objections are raised comprehensively at the earliest possible stage and that the litigant is not subjected to repeated returns for matters which could have been pointed out at the first instance.

22. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

23. The Registry is directed to place this order before My Lord, the Hon’ble Chief Justice, for obtaining necessary orders as to whether copy of this order be circulated to all the Subordinate Courts in the State.

07.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No er

Copy to:-

1. The Register General, High Court of Judicature, Chennai.

2. The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3. The Registrar, (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4. The District Munsif Court, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.

R.POORNIMA, J. er CRP(MD)No.2291 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.11149 of 2026 07/09/2026