V.G.Arun v. Kuppayee
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition quashing an erroneous order by the Additional District Judge. The lower court erred in dismissing a plea to permit representation via a Power of Attorney holder, violating fundamental principles of civil procedure.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order dismissing the application under Order III Rule 2 CPC is set aside and the application is allowed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P(PD)No. 3674 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 20465 of 2018
V.G.Arun ...Petitioner/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Kuppayee
2.Bakkiyam
3.Periyammal
4.Pappathi
5.Pothammal
6.Periyasamy
7.Chinnasamy 8.Poorkodi ...Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 in I.A.No. 461 of 2018 in O.S.No. 193 of 2015 on the file of the III – Additional District Court, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sekar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan for
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil court can refuse an application to be represented by a power of attorney holder under Order III Rule 2 CPC.
Whether a District Judge exhibited fundamental ignorance by dismissing such an application.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V. Arun
- respondent
Kuppayee
- respondent
Bakkiyam
- respondent
Periyammal
- respondent
Pappathi
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court