Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1681 (MAD)

Manish Khanna v. Prabu Polycolor Limited

2016-04-29

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2016
ORDER : The plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee is the petitioner in the present revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said suit, the revision/plaintiff filed two applications I.A.No.43 of 2016 and I.A.No.44 of 2016 for two types of injunctions. After the court was satisfied with the service of notice privately with the permission of the Court, the learned trial Judge accepted the undertaking given by two advocates to file vakalat for R1 to R5. But the said advocates went on getting adjournment after adjournment without filing vakalat and counter and the Court below also chose to grant time for filing vakalat and counter on all occasions wherein such time was prayed for. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. As the revision pertains to inaction and omission on the part of the trial Court to pass necessary orders on the failure to file vakalat for the respondents, it shall be unnecessary to issue notice in these civil revision petitions and orders can be passed incorporating necessary direction to the trial Court. 3. There is no provision either in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Civil Rules of Practice enabling a party to give an undertaking to appear without making proper appearance and seek adjournments. The very procedure adopted by the Court below in acting upon the undertaking given by the counsel, who was not holding proper authorisation to represent the party, is an improper exercise of jurisdiction conferred on the Court. Even if it is construed to be a courtesy extended to the members of the bar to accommodate them, such courtesy cannot be extended repeatedly recognizing the representation made by a person who has not been duly authorised by the party. Hence, this Court is convinced that the directions sought for in these revisions have got to be issued. Accordingly, both the revisions are allowed and the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee is directed to pass necessary orders in I.A.Nos.43 & 44 of 2016 in O.S.No.17 of 2016 without granting further extension of time for filing vakalat. No costs.