Defendants must produce relevant power-of-attorney documents, failing which adverse inference may follow.

The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 3009 of 2011 before the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, sought declaration that certain documents were null and void, along with a permanent injunction.

During the plaintiffs’ evidence, they filed I.A. No. 5 of 2025 and I.A. No. 8 of 2026 seeking subpoenas to the Sub-Registrars, Villivakkam and Red Hills, for production of two Powers of Attorney dated 4 June 2010, registered as Document No. 518 of 2010, and 2 March 2005, registered as Document No. 378 of 2005.

The trial court rejected the applications on the ground that the plaintiffs could have obtained certified copies and had not taken steps to do so.

The plaintiffs challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Before the High Court, the plaintiffs stated that the defendants had not filed the two Powers of Attorney and that the plaintiffs were unable to obtain certified copies because they were not parties to those documents.

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiffs’ applications for issuing subpoenas to secure production of the two Powers of Attorney merely because certified copies could allegedly have been obtained.

Whether the defendants should be directed to produce copies of the two Powers of Attorney, with the consequence of an adverse inference if they failed to do so.

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while examining the interlocutory orders passed by the trial court.

The court applied the procedural principle that relevant documents necessary for adjudication may be directed to be produced by the party in whose possession or control they are available, particularly where the opposing party cannot reasonably obtain them independently.

It further held that failure to produce documents directed to be produced may justify an adverse inference against the defaulting party.

The High Court noted that the suit had been pending since 2011 and that the two Powers of Attorney were relevant to the plaintiffs’ challenge to the impugned documents.

Although the trial court had rejected the applications on the basis that certified copies could be obtained, the High Court took into account the plaintiffs’ submission that they were not parties to the Powers of Attorney and were therefore unable to secure certified copies.

Rather than directing the issuance of subpoenas or setting aside the trial court’s orders, the High Court considered that the plaintiffs’ interests would be adequately protected by directing the defendants to produce copies of the documents.

If the defendants failed to comply, the trial court would remain entitled to draw an adverse inference.

The revision petitions were accordingly disposed of with a direction that the defendants be required to produce copies of the Powers of Attorney dated 4 June 2010 and 2 March 2005.

In the event of non-production, the trial court could draw an adverse inference against the defendants.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.