Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1382 (MAD)

Meerasa Sahib v. Shahjahan

2012-03-16

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment 1. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.53 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the 2nd respondent herein. 2. The suit was decreed exparte on 19.7.1989. The 1st respondent/ Decree Holder filed Execution Petition to execute the decree passed in his favour and in that application the revision petitioner who claims to be the Power Agent of the 2nd respondent/ defendant in the suit filed E.P.No.91 of2002 to permit him to prosecute the case on behalf of the 2nd respondent and that application was dismissed and as against the same, this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the 2nd respondent is admittedly residing abroad and he has executed the power in favour of the revision petitioner to prosecute the case and to deal with the suit property and that power was misplaced and the 2nd respondent has also admitted having executed the power in favour of the revision petitioner and despite the production of the letter by the 2nd respondent, the Court below rejected the application and therefore the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent/ Decree Holder filed E.P.No.289 of 2001 to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.53 of 1989 and that Execution Petition was allowed and the sale deed was executed by the Court in his favour on 13.8.2003 and the same was also registered on 14.8.2003 and thereafter he also filed E.P.No.185 of 2003 for delivery of possession and that petition was later withdrawn as he was in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale he therefore submitted that nothing survives in the application filed by the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner has no locus standi to file the application and that was rightly considered by the Court below and dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is seen from the order of the Court below that the revision petitioner did not file the alleged power executed by the 2nd respondent herein in his favour. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is seen from the order of the Court below that the revision petitioner did not file the alleged power executed by the 2nd respondent herein in his favour. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the power was executed when the 2nd respondent was in Foreign country and that power was misplaced and Police complaint was also given to trace the power and that is evidenced by Ex.P1 and the 2nd respondent/ Principal also admitted the execution of the power in favour of the revision petitioner as seen in Ex.P2 and therefore the revision petitioner has to be permitted to represent the interest of the Principal. 7. According to me, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application. The power was not produced and in the absence of power the revision petitioner cannot act as the Power Agent of the 2nd respondent. The letter Ex.P2 alleged to have been written by the 2nd respondent cannot be taken to prove the power and in the absence of power being produced before the Court, the revision petitioner cannot expect the Court to recognize the power. Further, admittedly, the 2nd respondent was residing in Foreign country and the power was executed while he was in Foreign country. Therefore, unless the power is authenticated in India before the competent authority as soon as it was received the power cannot be put to use and in the absence of original power, authentication cannot be done and hence the revision petitioner cannot claim any relief under the power. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner. 8. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.