The High Court · 2025

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND 1 {1ges Fatima, Wo.tvlohd lmtiyaz, Age..44 years, Occ. Household, R/o No.12_ 2-8301 1 I 1, Murad Nagar, Hyd5rabadl

2. Zoha Fatima, Wo.lvlohd.Kareemullah, Age. 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o.. No.'l 2-2-83 0 I 1 / 1, Mu rad Nagar, Hydera"bad.

3. Sabiha Fatlma Wo. (ha1a t\i,lohd. tV ujeebudd in, Age:39 years, Occ: Household, R/o..No.12-2-830i'1l1, Nturad Nigar, Hyderabld ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section i 5 i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Hign court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to represent Mrr Tehsin Ali i.e., the petitioner in ti-re present cRP, as his GPA holder by virtue of the Agreement of sare (with possession)- cUM-General Power of Attorney bearing document No. 1464 of 2010 dated 29- 04-2010, pending disposal of the main CRp 7 I I Counsel for the Appellant (in both CCCA and LA.No.1 of 20241 Counsel for the Respondent No.1 (in both CCCA and l.A.No.1 of 20241 : Sri Vedula Chitralekha : Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa Counsel for the Respondent No.2 (in both CCCA and LA.No.1 of 20241 : Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Counsel for the Respondent No.3 (in both CCCA and l.A.No.1 of 20241 : Sri p. Soma Sekhara Naidu The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA I.A.No.1 of 2024 In And C.C.C.A.No.l3 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: I.A.No. 1 of 2024 is hled to permit the peritioner herein to represent Mir Tehsin Ali, who is appellant in C.C.C.A.No.13 of 2024, as he is the G.P.A holder by virtue of Agreement of Sale (with possession)-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No. 1464 of 201O dared 29.O4_2OlO.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, a copy of the said G.P.A was filed and this Court perused the same. 'lhe present appeal is filed against the Order of the trial Court dated 03.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.865 of 2O15 in O.S.No.1024 of

2009. The said l.A was filcd for passing of the final decree proceedings, but the trial Court alter considcring several citations and arguments ol both sides, dismissed the application. Even in the said l.A, there is reference of the G.p.A, but the trial Court observed thar he is not authorized to file the petition on behalf of the petitioner. It was also observed that respondent No.2, who accepted in his written statement that suit ,ide o.S.No.3 1 of 2008 was decreed in rerms o[ compromise ) cannot again say that the said compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud. 3 Petitioner herein stated that he was given authority ro represcnt Mir Tehsin Ali/appellant in all legal matters as per the G.P.A dated 29.O4.2O1O. The Mir Tehsin Ali appeared himself in O.S.No. 1024 of 20O9 and he was not entrusted with the G.p.A at that point ol time and thus now he requested the Court to permit him to represent the Mir Tehsin Ali.

4. Though he requested this Court to permit him to represent the Mir Tehsin Ali, no reasons were assigned for cxccuting G.P.A in his favour. Moreover, vendor/ executants appeared himself in the suit, what prevented him ro appear before this Court did not explain an5z.rvhe re.

5. Thc learncd Counsel for the petitioner relicd upon thc .* decision of . the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case.of Nrrtubhai Chotabhai Patet Vs.Patno,m Shakuntala and. Ors., in u,hich it was held that "if the agent or GPA holder is authorized onlg to sign the pleadings or to giue euidence as a u-ritness, in such circumstances, Rule 32 is not mandatory." ( J

6. The learned Counsel lor respondents relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojutani and another Vs.Indusind Bank Ltd. and others, in which it was held as follows: "Potoer to depose in place of pincipal, held, extends only to depositions in respect of 'acts' done by pouer of attorneA holder in exercise of power granted by the instntment. Tenn 'acts' utould not include deposing in place of and instead of the pincipal for acts done by pincipal and not bg pouer of attomey holder. Stmilorly, pouer of attomeA holder cannot depose for pincipal in respect of matters of which pincipal is liable to be cross- examined. If pincipal is unable to appeor in court, a commission for recording his euidence mag be issued. "

7. ln the Counter liled by respondent No.2, she stated that permission cannot be given for the reason that the present case is a City Civil Court Appeal, but not a Revision. [t is also statcd that the entire document is silent as to filing suit lor partition, frling petition for final decree, deposing on behalf of the principal, Iiling of the appeal etc., as such the deponent cannot file appeal without any specific power given to him under the { collusive Agreement of Sale (with possession) - cum - Gcneral Power of Attorney. She also stated that in the absence of any specilic power, the deponent cannot act on behalf of the Principal based upon collusive documenr- ,+

8. Perusal of the G.P.A clause - 12(e) shows that the G.p.A holder is authorized to appear before the Courts and to sign, verif], and file piaints, representations etc., and to appoint third person on behalf of lhe vendor, but it is not an exclusive General l)orvcr of Attorney issued in favour of the petitioner herein, it is the Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorne)'. Moreover, the executant appeared before the trial Court and thc G.P.A holder intended to represent him in the appeal, but the reasons for non-representation of the executant in the appeal is not explained anyvrrhere. Therefore, this Court finds that therc are no merits in the present application and it is liable to bc dismissed.

9. Accor<lingl-y. I.A.No.1 of 2O24 is dismissed. Consequently, C.C.C.A.No.13 of 2024 is closed. There shall be no order as to CoStS \ To, //TRUE COPY// I Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO T REGISTRAR v\__--....-- ECTION OFFICER

1. The XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Vedula Chitralekha, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri P. Soma Sekhara Naidu , Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies kanr'gh ,D HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.1 ot 2024 In/and CCCA.No.13 of 2024 =:::: ir {HE ST47.,' 1/ FiB \ff\ -.?a lr .. cr,. .. .. t4f -:,.-::_--;-- (\ + -./ )7 l.A.No.1 of 202415 DISMISSED THE C.C.C.A.No.13 of 2024 IS CLOSED 9r.:\x-v