Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramanir, the trial Court has dismissed the LA. under revision

5. Sri Naveen Kumar Arya, S/o. not known to the plaintiff, aged major, Occ. business R/o. 3-5-351, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. (respondents No.1,3&5 are not necessary parties to this revision) ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants ! i I l 1 t rA NO. 1 0F 202s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings in the suit in 0.S.No.73412019 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above civil revision petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s). SRL SHYAM S AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mohd. fi/umtaz Pasha The Court made the following: ORDER THE, HONOL|I{ABLE SMT. JUSTICI] RENUKA YARA (.lVlL ltl'.\ lSl0\ I'>ll'l'l-tlON No.l69 of 2025 oRDER: Heard Sri Shl arn S. Aganval, leamcd counsel lirr thc revision petitioner and Sri Mohcl. Mumtaz l)asha, learned iounsel tbr respondent No.4. Perused the entirc' rccord

2. 'lhe present Cir"il Rer ision Petition is fi led by the revision petitioner/plaintitT aggrieved b1' thc irnpugned order dated 06. 12.2024 passed by the leamed XXV .Additional Chiel- Judge, City' Civil Coun at Hyderabad, ('trial Coun'), in I.A.No. 1404 o12024 in O.S.No.734 of 2019.

3. The main suit is tlled b1,the petit ioner/plaintiff initialty represented by his General Power 01'Attomey ('GPA') holder E. Prabhakar against the respondents tbr recovery ol possession, recovery of money, perpetual injunction and for mcsnc prolits with rc'spect to property consisting of Flat No.404, on loufth llool in 'Aniali Enclave' apartments, on the property bearing municipal Nos..i-6-7]/121 , 3-6-72/8A and 3-6-12/l situated at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, admeasuring 816.00 square leet ('suit schedule property'). The said suit was initially presentcd by E. Prabhakar rvith GPA dated 04.09.2012 as the levision petitioner was residing in lJr.rited States of (USA). The said I:. Prabhakar died on 26.11.2019. Thereafter, no fmerica \ RY..I cRI' l09 202-i death ccrtif rcate uas filed liorn 2(r.l I .10 l9 and ltis death was not reported to the Court. Subsequentlv. the revision pc'titioner tiled E.P.No.4l8 of 1022 tirr delivcry ol'possession through GPA holder E. Satvanaravana il,ith GPA tlatecl 17.ll.ll:)19 and the said GPA has hc-en ort rccord !.\er sirlce. The petitioner without filing any docurncnt cancelling the GPA issued in favour ol E. Satyanarayana has filed I.A. under revision seeking permission to appoint one Prithvi Raj Kathuri as his (iPA holder to continue to prosecute the suit on the basis of GI'}A dated 21.08.2022. By refl'rring to the judgrnent ol- Ilon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case o1- Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramanir, the trial Court has dismissed the LA. under revision leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. ln grounds of revision, it is pleaded that there is a difference between pennitting the CP.\ holder to prosecute the casc and gir ing cvide.nce in the suit. Further. it is submitted that the trial Court has misunderstood the proposition of law relating to giving evidence in a case and the decision ol- lJon'ble Suprerne Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani r'. Indusind Bank r, Ltd. r.r,hercin it is held that GPA holder cau depose and r,eri fy with respect to transaction about which he has personal knowledge. The petition 1 Civil Appeal No.9642 of 2010, dated 10.04-2024 ' toos Qy scc ztt 2 1l ; l I I RY.J cRP 169 2025 is filed only for the purpose of prosecuting the case on the basis of GPA dated 22.08.2022, but not tbr thc purposc ol giving evidence. Further, it is stated that the GPA holder is having personal kros,ledge about the dispute and it is not possible lbr the rcvision petitioner to prosecutc the casc on his own as he is residing abroad. '[ he suit u,as filcd by the revision petitioner through his f'ather as GPA and rvhcn his fatlrer died, thc said GPA stood revoked autornatically'and a fi-esh (lPA iras executc-d by him in tavour of E. Satyanarayana, who is his plrternal unclc. [)ue to ill-hcalth of said E. Satyanarayana, thc rcvision petitioner revoked the said (il)A as rvell and executed GPA dated 22.08.2021 in lavour of his brother-in-law bv name Prithvi Raj Kathuri. The revision petitioner visited India and filed his affidavit in chief, however, as the respondents sought to set aside e-\ parte order and the same was allorved, the nlatter is postcd tbr trial. There fore, the I.A. under revisior.r is frled seeking perrnission tbr new Cil'}A holder to prosecute the case. Further, the GPA has already' t-rled evidence aftldavit along with l.A. under revision and the evidentiary value of said deposition can be evaluated at the time ol passing of .judgrnent as any person can be exarnined as rvitness.

5. Respondent No.4 herein flled his counter questioning the locus standi of the GPA holder of the revisiotr petitioner to file petition under 3 RY..I ct(1, 169 2025 Rule 32 (1) of the Civil Rulcs of Practice and to filc the present revision. It is submitted that the suit rvas filed by executing GPA in favour of F. I'rabhakar hr orte [:. I]lianu I)rakash. Said t:. l)rahl-rakar Il led suit in thc nronth of'.luly. 20lc). I'he r*,ision petitioner exr-cuted Ci[)A on 04.09.20 l] at USA and said attorncy was alleged to have died on 26.11.2019" but death certiflcate is not filed. Thereafter, GPA is cxecutcd in favoLrr of [: Satyanaral,ana and he continued as agent ol' the revision petiti()ncr I-hereafter. a li'esh (iPA dated 22.08.2022 was executcd in India rvithout liling allidar it under llule Ii ol Civil Rules of Practice. Fufther. cvidencc allldar, it is liled to depose on behalf ol- the revision petitioncr. lt is submitted that tl-re earlier GPA executed in favour of E. Satyanarayana was not cancelled and therefore, the present GPA hotder is not authorized l-astly, it is subnritlecl that tlie petition is vaguc about the Cil'A holder rvitnessing the transaction and having knowledge about f'acts ol'the case. llence, prayed that revision petition be dismissed

6. As per the version of the revision petitioner, since he is staying in t.lSA, hc executed a GPA in lavour ol his fathel to present the suit. Atier death of the tather ol the revision petitioner, the GPA executed in f-avour of his fathcr stoocl automaticalll, revoked and neu, GPA g,as erecuted i1 Iar,'our o1- L. Satyanarayana, who is uncle of the revision petitioner. Said F.. 4 RY,J cr{P 169 2025 Satyanarayana is not keeping well and therefbre, the revision petitioner has executed another GPA in f-avour of his brothcr-in-law. 7 . l'he whole series of'events shows atte ntpts on the pan of the revision petitioner to prosecute the case in India through C[)As as he is rcsiding in [JSA. The circumstances stated about death of his father and illness of uncle does not seern unrcasonahle f or erecution ol'a ll'e'sh (iPr\ in lirvour of his brother-in-law. Any prude'nt pcrson rvhen there is hurdle has to tl'rd solution. In the instant case, when the lathcr of the revision pctitioner has died. he fbund the solution by executing Gl'}A in his lavour ol'his urrcle. When subsecluent problem of illness of'his uncle E. Satyanaral,ana cropped up, the revision petitioner canre up witl.r solution by executing GPA in favour of his brother-in-law. 8, Rules 32 and 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice permits plosecution of cases through GPAs. In case ol companies, regularly Cl)As are cxecuted and ivhen one such GPA holder retires or leaves thc company, new GI)A is \ executed in favour of new person and in such cases revocation of earlier GPA is not filed as such condition is not irnposed bv any statute. A person I with the latest GPA as per permission of the Court has to prosecute the case and the earlier GPA holder ceases to have any right to prosecute the case. In view of the general practice, since there is no legal requirernent ol 5 RY.J.i ('R.P 169 2025 cancellation of earlier GPA. there is no need for filing of such a docurnent Furthcr, as conterlded b1' the revision petitioner an)' person. rvho is accluaintc'd n,ith the facts of the case and transactions is conlpetent to depose as ri itness. 'l-he conrpetence ol the GPA holder to deposc' on behalf ol- rer ision pctitioner can be decided by the trial Court afler rccording his evirlencc at thc tirru o1'pronouncing the judgment. In view ol the lbregoinu discussion. this Corrrt is of thc considered opinion thal the irnpugned order is liahle to lre set asidc

9. [n thc rcsult. the ('ivil Revision Petition is allou'ed by setting asidc the irnpurncri ordcr dated 06. 12.1024 in I.A.No. 1404 ol 1024 in O.S.No.7-'ll ol' 20 l9 on thc tlle of the trial Court and consequently, the I.A.No. 140,1 of 2024 is allowed by permitting the GPA holder of the revision petitioner to prosecute the suit in O.S.No.734 of' 201 8 pulsuant to (iPA dated 11.0tii.2022. '['here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications. il'any. pending shall stand closed. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records if any) C, 2 One CC to SRI Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl.Mohd. Mumtaz Pasha, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies A,4'S I- I I 1 HIGH COURT DATED 13/10/2025 ORDER CRP.No 169of2025 ltt.. S.TAiE o o 1 3 rt8 2[26 * .D.is- ^ { CIVII, tII]VISION PETITION IS ALI,OWED. d\)-t )oL