9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the representation of a judgment debtor in Execution Proceedings through a Power Agent and the validity of such representation in the context of a violation of an injunction order. Representation of Judgment Debtor through Power Agent: The Revision Petition was filed against an order passed under Order 3 Rule 3 read with 151 C.P.C. The suit in question was for declaration and permanent injunction regarding certain properties. The defendant, along with her sons, disobeyed the decree and interfered with the plaintiffs' lands. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a petition for arrest and detention in civil prison under Section 55 read with Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. The defendant's son filed an Execution Application to represent his mother as her Power Agent, citing a Power of Attorney document. The Lower Court dismissed the Execution Application, stating that the Power of Attorney cannot represent the judgment debtor in personal matters. The petitioner contended that the Civil Procedure Code allows representation by a Power Agent, and any order in the Execution Proceedings would bind the judgment debtor. However, the respondents argued that the Power Agent can only act within the scope of the Power of Attorney and cannot represent personal acts of the defendant. Validity of Representation in Violation of Injunction Order: The respondents contended that the Power Agent cannot represent personal acts committed by the defendant, especially in cases of violation of injunction where personal explanation to the Court is necessary. They equated the proceedings to a contempt proceeding. Citing a judgment, they emphasized that the Power of Attorney holder can only depose for acts done in pursuance of the Power of Attorney, not for acts done personally by the principal. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that in cases of personal accusations, the Power of Attorney cannot represent the principal, as the evidence should come directly from the party accused of violating the court order. In conclusion, the court confirmed the order of the Lower Court, dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. The court held that in cases of personal accusations related to violation of court orders, the Power of Attorney cannot represent the principal, and the accused party must personally lead evidence to disprove the accusations.
|
