Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
04. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2698 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 o”
1. M.Abdul Majeed Khan 2. M.A.Tajan Beevi 3. M.Ayub Khan 4. M.Nasar Khan 5. M.Yusuff Khan 6. N.Nausath Begam 7. M.Yasmin Nisha ... Petitioners/Respondents 1 to7/ Plaintiffs Vs.
1. Smt.Suraiya Begam 2. Abuthahir Khan 3. Ibrahim Khan ... Respondents 1 to 3/ Respondents 8 to 10/ Defendants 1 t”
4. M.Mohammed Ah Jinna 5. Jahangir Basha 6. Piyari John 7. Saleem Basha 8. V.Sabeer ... Respondents 4 to 8/Petitioners 1 to 5/Defendants 4 to 8 Prayer Petition filed under 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decreetal order passed by the District Munsif at Melur, Madurai District in I.A.No.604 of 2012, in O.S.No.276 of 2012 dated 21.09.2012. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Jaganathan ^ * * * * * :ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 21.09.2012 passed in I.A.No.604 of 2012, in O.S.No.276 of 2012, by the learned District Munsif at Melur, Madurai District.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners.
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would echo the cri de coeur of his client to the effect that there are as many as eight defendants in the suit; however, the eighth defendant posed himself as Power of the Attorney of the defendants 4 to 7 based on the power deed dated 14.05.2012 and the lower Court, despite objection raised by the plaintiffs, simply allowed it.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds.
5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the decision of this Court in Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. R.Ramajaam and Others reported in (2009)8 MLJ 108.and proceed to elaborate his arguments by pointing out that the affidavit filed by the Power of Attorney does not contain any details, and simply as a matter of course, the lower Court allowed the eighth defendant to represent the defendants 4 to 7 without any rhyme or reason and such a course is not contemplated and accordingly, there has to be an interference by this Court with the order passed by the lower Court.
6. A mere running of the eye over the precedent cited supra would reveal that that was a case where one of the plaintiffs signed on behalf of the others without properly obtaining permission from the Court under Order III, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 16 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Here, the facts are different. The eighth defendant, the Power of Attorney is himself eo nominee party to the proceedings and he wants to represent the other defendants and that too, on the strength of the registered power deed dated 14.05.2012. In the penultimate para of the power deed, I could see that the other defendants-principals authorised the eighth defendant to represent them in Court. In such a case, I could see no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the lower Court.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs. ssl To The Court of District Munsif at Melur, Madurai District.