Authority: Madras High Court, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu

Order Date: 12 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 (CRP No.1474 of 2016 and CMP.No.9237 of 2016) by D. Thirunavukarasu, seeking to set aside the order dated 10 March 2015 (CMP.No.1353 of 2014, AS.No.464 of 2010) of the Additional City Civil Court‑IV, Chennai.
  • Respondents: 1. P.V.P. Murthy (deceased), 2. Gopinath, 3. Prabhakaran, 4. Skygrow Maarthi Benefit Fund Ltd (represented by Managing Director G. Neelaram), 5‑11: M. Padmavathy, F. Hemamalini, M. Gokulnath, V. Rekha, M. Ragunath, T. Harini, M. Srinath (recorded as legal representatives of the deceased respondent 1 per order dated 15/04/2025 in CMP No.5727 of 2024).
  • Background: Respondents 1‑3 borrowed money from respondent 4 in 1996 and executed a registered mortgage deed. Upon default, respondent 4 auctioned the mortgaged property. The petitioner purchased the property as the successful bidder; a sale deed was subsequently registered at the Sub‑Registrar, Thousand Lights.
  • Litigation History: Respondents 1‑3 filed three suits to prevent the auction; all were dismissed for non‑prosecution. The petitioner then instituted a suit for delivery of vacant possession and Rs.5,000 per month as future damages. The decree was appealed by the first respondent; the appeal was dismissed against respondents 2‑4, later restored on application. During the appeal, the first respondent filed two interlocutory applications: (i) seeking direction for the petitioner to appear in person for cross‑examination, and (ii) seeking a subpoena to the auctioneer. The petitioner was represented by a valid Power of Attorney.
  • Counsel Appearances: Petitioner’s counsel – Mr. S. Rajendra Kumar; Respondent‑4 counsel – Mr. R. Bharath Kumar; Respondents 5‑11 counsel – Mr. A. Chidambaram.
  • Arguments: The petitioner argued that there was no challenge to the auction or sale deed, thus no need to summon the petitioner or the auctioneer; cited judgments of Government of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya (2014 (1) LW 103) and Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur (AIR 1931 PC 143). Respondents 5‑11 contended the revision was not maintainable because the petitioner had not challenged the order in the other interlocutory application; alleged fraud in the auction; relied on judgment in CRP(PD).No.1345 of 2008 and on the principle that a Power of Attorney cannot act as a witness (citing 1999 (3) SCC 573).
  • Court’s Reasoning: The court held that the two interlocutory applications were independent; non‑challenge of one does not preclude review of the other. It noted that the first respondent had not contested the auction sale or sale deed and had not raised a counter‑claim, therefore no necessity to cross‑examine the petitioner’s attorney. The court rejected the contention that a Power of Attorney cannot give evidence beyond personal knowledge, emphasizing that the petitioner’s case was based on the registered sale deed and possession claim, not on unsubstantiated fraud allegations.

Final Outcome

  • The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
  • The Additional City Civil Court‑IV, Chennai is directed to dispose of the pending appeal suit within three months of receiving a copy of this order.

Topics: Civil Procedure, Property Law