@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
B.K. Somasekhara, J.@mdashThe order of the learned District Munsif at Bichkunda on LA. 166/95 in O.S.No.3/92 dated 3rd day of April, 1996 is challenged. The revision petitioner claims to be the General Power of Attorney (for short GPA) holder of the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The petitioner filed the application u/s 151 CPC and by filing GPA into the Court sought the permission to prosecute the proceedings for and on behalf of the plaintiff. It was resisted by the respondents. The learned District Munsif after hearing both sides rejected the application.
2. Mr. Dharmender Goud, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. Vinodkumar Deshpande, llearned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the rejection of the application of the petitioner by the learned District Munsif is without any justification and not founded on legal principles.
3. The respondents were notified before taking up the matter for admission. They have not responded to the same. Therefore, the case is heard on merits at the admission stage only and being disposed of on merits.
4. Admittedly, the learned Advocate for the petitioner filed the GPA into Court in the suit which authorised the petitioner to appear and conduct the case for and on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground of plaintiff''s ill health preventing him from conducting the case himself. A doctor certificate was also produced before the Court wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner required 45 days'' rest. Therefore, the learned District Munsif held that no further certificate was filed to show that the plaintiff required further rest and that GPA wanted to take revenge against the respondents by representing the plaintiff and, therefore, dismissed the application.
5. On the face of it the order of the learned District Munsif suffers from illegality and legal propriety. When the plaintiff''s learned Advocate himself filed GPA into Court, permitting the holder of the GPA to prosecute the litigation, the Court was bound to take note mat it was being done at the instance of the plaintiff himself. In other words, the execution and authorisation for the GPA by the plaintiff was prima facie established. The reason for the party to appoint a GPA to conduct or prosecute a litigation is irrelevant in dealing with such a matter. Such cases wherein GPA holder wants to prosecute the proceedings on behalf of the parties are governed by Order III Rules 1,2 and 6 of C.P.C. Rule 1 of Order III contemplates that any appearance, application or act in or to any Court required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be. on his behalf. Therefore, whatever a party to a litigation can do in person, can be done by his recognized agent or by pleader as the case may be. Rule 2 of the Order explains as to who are the recognized agents. Sub-clause (a) of the Rule in unmistakable terms classify persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties etc., as the recognized agents. Therefore, the function of the Court to deal with such an application is to first of all to find out whether there is duly authorised agent called recognized agent by means of power of attorney or any legally empowering document in that regard. Rule 6(2) of Order III contemplates that the appointment of a recognized agent may be special or general and shall be made by an instrument in writing signed by the principal, and such instrument or, if the. appointment is general, a certified copy thereof shall be filed in Court. The provision is so clear as to how an authorised agent can be appointed by the party to a litigation. That was done in this case. Secondly by filing the GPA into Court the appointment of him by the party viz., the plaintiff was confirmed. In such a situation it was beyond the jurisdiction and power of the Court to probe into the propriety or otherwise of the party or the GPA entering into such an authorisation even to the extent of accepting the contention of the defendants, that such a GPA was designed to harass them as there were litigations against them and they were being conducted by the power-of-attorney only for that end. The whole approach of the matter by the learned District Munsif is not only illegal and improper but also beyond the jurisdiction. In the considered opinion of this Court this case has satisfied all the requirements for the power-of-attorney to come on record and to conduct litigation on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit in view of the fulfilment of the conditions under Order III Rules, 1,2(a) and 6(2) of C.P.C., and therefore, the order under revision cannot be sustained, and deserves to be set aside. The C.R.P. is allowed with costs. The petitioner shall be permitted to conduct the suit 10 for and on behalf of the plaintiff subject to the terms of the power-of-attorney. The Court may direct that such a record shall be made in the cause title if necessary.
