Changed circumstances may warrant permitting an SPA holder to conduct proceedings when the plaintiff cannot testify.

In O.S. No. 37/2015, the petitioners sought permission under Order III Rule 2 CPC for petitioner No. 2’s Special Power of Attorney holder to conduct the suit.

The Trial Court rejected I.A. No. 21/2026, relying on its earlier order of 28 March 2019, which had refused similar relief.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227, relying on changed circumstances and a Court Commissioner’s report stating that petitioner No. 2, the plaintiff, was unable to speak and that an oath could not be administered to her.

Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of I.A. No. 21/2026 could stand when it relied on its earlier order without considering the plaintiff’s changed circumstances.

Whether, in light of the Commissioner’s report concerning the plaintiff’s condition, permission should be granted for the SPA holder to conduct the suit under Order III Rule 2 CPC.

The application was made under Order III Rule 2 CPC, which the Court identified as the provision governing the request for an SPA holder to conduct the suit.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to review the Trial Court’s order.

No precedent was cited; the Court’s stated basis was that the Trial Court had to consider the changed circumstances relevant to the renewed application.

The Trial Court rejected the application principally because it had previously denied a similar request, but did not assess the circumstances underlying the renewed application.

The Commissioner’s report recorded that petitioner No. 2 was unable to speak, preventing the administration of an oath.

The High Court treated this as a compelling change in circumstances and concluded that the rejection could not be sustained without consideration of that evidence.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 16 July 2026, and allowed I.A. No. 21/2026 under Order III Rule 2(a) CPC.