Procedural defects in a power of attorney do not invalidate proceedings when subsequently rectified.

The petitioners challenged the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghatal, rejecting their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

By that application, they sought rejection of the written statement and written objection filed by defendant no. 1, along with an order directing that the suit proceed ex parte.

The petitioners contended that the original power-of-attorney authorising Sri Shankar Maity, father of defendant no. 1 Sri Anjan Maity, lacked proper identification by an advocate and did not contain adequate residential particulars.

They also argued that the written statement filed on 18 January 2025 was belated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

During the proceedings, the defendant filed a subsequent power-of-attorney dated 18 January 2025, together with another written statement, seeking to cure the procedural defects in the earlier authorisation.

The Trial Court considered the subsequent rectification and rejected the petitioners’ application.

1. Whether the procedural defects in the original power-of-attorney invalidated the authority of the defendant’s father to act in the suit, so as to warrant rejection of the written statement and written objection?

2. Whether the subsequent filing of a corrected power-of-attorney and written statement could cure the defects in the earlier authorisation and procedural filings?

3. Whether the written statement filed on 18 January 2025 was liable to be rejected as belated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC?

4. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application under Section 151 CPC and in declining to direct ex parte hearing of the suit?

The Court considered Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, under which the Court may presume that a power-of-attorney purporting to have been executed and authenticated before a notary public or other specified authority was duly executed and authenticated.

The Court applied Section 151 CPC concerning the inherent powers of the civil court and Order VIII Rule 1 CPC concerning the filing of written statements within the prescribed period.

Relying principally on Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75, the Court reiterated that defects relating to pleadings, authority, vakalatnama or presentation are ordinarily procedural and curable, and should not result in automatic rejection unless the applicable statute expressly mandates such consequence.

The Court also relied on the principle stated in 2002 SCC OnLine Del 3, corresponding to 2002 (62) DRJ 72, that non-notarisation or procedural irregularity in a power-of-attorney is not necessarily fatal where the defect is subsequently cured and the authority is ratified.

The Court held that the objection concerned procedural deficiencies in the original power-of-attorney rather than a denial of the signature or actual execution by Sri Anjan Maity.

The subsequent power-of-attorney dated 18 January 2025 was treated as rectifying the earlier defects and as confirming that the original authorisation had in fact been granted in favour of Sri Shankar Maity.

Applying the principle that curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights, the Court found that the defendant’s father had acted under an authority that was subsequently regularised and ratified.

On that basis, the filing of the written statement could not be rejected merely because of the earlier procedural irregularities.

The Court agreed with the Trial Court that acceptance of the written statement and rejection of the petitioners’ Section 151 application disclosed no jurisdictional or legal error.

Although the petitioners raised an objection based on the prescribed period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the Court’s reasoning treated the defect and subsequent regularisation as procedural and did not find grounds for striking out the defence.

It held that the defects in the original power-of-attorney were procedural and had been cured by the subsequent power-of-attorney and accompanying filings.

The Trial Court committed no error in accepting the defendant’s written statement, rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC, and declining to order ex parte hearing.

Accordingly, C.O. No. 1884 of 2025 was dismissed, all connected applications were dismissed, and any interim order was vacated.