This is a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to examine the Sub-Registrar regarding the execution of the power of attorney in a dispute over a specific performance suit. The revision was dismissed with no costs.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP No.1144 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
CRP No.1144 of 2024 and CMP No.5910 of 2024
N.Natarajan ... Petitioner Vs 1.Lavakumar 2.Jothimani @ Jothi 3.Kayalvizhi 4.Kavipriya 5.Selvam 6.Mani ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2023 in O.S.No.41 of 2011 by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dr.S.S.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Sudarshan For Mr.S.Subramanian For R.1 R.2 to R.6 – No appearance
1/8
CRP No.1144 of 2024
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in I.A.No.13 of 2023 in O.S.No.41 of 2011 dated 14.12.2023.
agreement of sale dated 05.10.2010. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 to 3, who are the original owners of the suit property, executed a Power of attorney in favour of the defendants 4 and 5. The said defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. As the demand of the plaintiff remained unsatisfied and since the sale deed was not executed, he filed suit for the aforesaid relief.
2/8
CRP No.1144 of 2024
post 01.02.2011. Taking advantage of certain individuals working in the Sub Registrar's Office, the restricted clause stating that the power of attorney would come into force after 01.02.2011, was deleted in the original. They have taken a specific plea that a certified copy of the document dated 01.10.2010 which contains the restrictive clause, is available with them.
3/8
CRP No.1144 of 2024
basis of which the agreement was entered into with the plaintiff, is a fabricated one. He states that the fabrication occurred in the Sub Registrar's Office with the connivance of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 o 5 as they
are close relatives. Hence,the requirement to examine the Sub Registrar.
CRP No.1144 of 2024
the suit property. Therefore, Mr.Sudarshan pleads that the order of the learned trial Judge does not require any interference and it has to be confirmed.
an also have gone through the records.
law, it would not affect the Court to deal with the merits of the case. He is right. Quoting of wrong provision of law would not affect disposing the petition on merits, in case the Court otherwise has jurisdiction to deal with the said application.
5/8
CRP No.1144 of 2024
6/8
CRP No.1144 of 2024
7/8
CRP No.1144 of 2024
sr
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.,
04.11.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order sr To The Principal District Court, Dharmapuri
CRP No.1144 of 2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned trial Judge committed any error in rejecting the application to examine the Sub Registrar under Order XVIII Rule 3(A) CPC.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal of the application to summon the Sub-Registrar during the pendency of a specific performance suit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N.Natarajan
Lavakumar
Jothimani
Kayalvizhi
Kavipriya
Selvam
V.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
