The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT'RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT IA NO: 'toF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in HigL Court may be pleased to stav the affidavit filed in suppori'of inu p"titiin, -td all further proceedings is o s iro joo ot 2021 on tne file of Hon'ble lll Additional District & Sessions.tuoge cu; -tl Addrtional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum - principal Family court, rril.o*"t rr-rrrrrir.rjg iri District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P PRATAP Counsel for the Respondent: SRI KAKARA VENKATA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER _=:----_ THE HONOURABLE THE ACTII{G CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAIIT KUMAR CTWL REVISIOil PETITION No.416 OF 2o25 ORDER: (Per Hon'bLe The Acting Chief Justice) This petition filed under Article 222 of the constitution takes exception to the order dated 24.or.2o2s in I.A.No.1164 of 2024 in I.A.No.1158 of 2o2t in o.s.No.266 of 2o2L on the Iile of III Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-Il Additional Metropolital Sessions Judge-cum-principal Family Court Judge., Medchal-Markajsrri District at Kukatpally ('trial courtJ, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of civil Procedure code ('c.p.c) for ignoring the counter afhdavit hled by Sri G. Subrahmanyam by ctaiming himself as authorized person from the District Cooperative Officer on behalf of the respondent/ defendant Societ_v, was dismis sed.

2. The trial Court dismissed the said applicarion by way of the impugned order by holding that by communication dated Oa.lO.2O24 (Ex.P-2), the District Cooperarive Otficer has given authorization to the said persorr and the said order was not called in question. Sri G. subrahmanyarn is a Government otrrcial and member appointed by way of Ex.p 2 and therefore, no application l i i i i I I i I I 'l l I i I I 2 HACJ (SP,J) &NVSK,J cRP 415 2025 under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice was required to be frled.

3. Criticizing the said hnding' Sri Vedula Srinivas' learned Senior Counsel rePresenting Sri P. PrataP, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only authorization existing on the relevant date is communication dated O8. lO'2024' This communicatio n cannot be treated as a valid authorization because this is a letter written by the District Cooperative Ofhcer to the counsel wherein he authorized Sri G' Subrahmanyam to sign vakalath and contest in O.S.No.26 6 of 2O2l' There exists no authorization is evident from retter issued under Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 25.10.2024 (Ex'P-l)' rvherein the Department admitted that no authorization is given to the Society members for hling counters in O.S.No.266 of 2O2l '

4. Furthermore, it is submitted that aS per Section 32(7) of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act' 1964 and Rule 32 of the civil Rules of Practice, Sri G. Subrahmanyam could not be treated to be authorized person to oppose the present suit' It is further submitted that along with counter G'O'Rt'No'42' 5. dated 01.02. 2025 andproceedings in R'C'No'2859/2017-ft qfated ) 'j HACJ (SP,J) & NVSKJ cRP 416 2025 01'03.2025 are filed before this court, but these authorizations were admittedly not available as on the date of passing of the impugned order. This subsequent author2ation will not make any difference because admittedly as on the date of passing of the impugled order, there existed no such va_lid author ization.

6. Sounding a contra note, Sri p. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kakara Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the arguments are hyper technical in nature. Since the elected body of the Society was not functioning, Sri G. Subrahmanyam, a Government Official was appointed to take care of the Society. Thus, he is representing the Society itself and cannot be treated as an agent of the Society. [n other r,r,ords, he was representative of the Society duly authorized by the Department and hence, Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice is inapplicable.

7. Apart from this, the authorization is an in-house mechanism betneen Department and its Officer. The communication dated Oa.lO.2024 (Ex.P-2) shows that the District Cooperative Officer has authorized Sri G. Subrahmanyam. Later on, the Government on O1.O2.2025 through G.O.Rt.No.42 authorized the same Officer 4 HACJ (SP,J) & NVSK,J cRP 416 2025 along with two more persons w.e.f. 14.07 '2024 for acting as Person-In-Charge Committee of the Society' The same is followed by proceedings in Rc'No'2859/ 2Ol7iH' dated O1'03 '2025' The auttrorization is given with retrospective effect' For all these reasons, no interference may be made' No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the 8 parties. g. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentionsofthepartiesandperusedtherecord.

10. It is not in dispute that the elected body of the Society was therefore, Sri G . SubrahmanYam, a not functioning arrd Government Official was appointed to represent the Society' Thus, we find substance in the argument of Sri P' Sri Raghu Ram' learned Senior Counsel for the respondent' that the said Officer was not acfing as arl agent' instead he was representing the Society. Thus, Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice was not required to be followed and in this regard' no lault can be found in the order of the trial Court' 5 HACJ (SP,J) & NVSK,J cRP 4t6 2025 1i. So far, the information under Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 25. lO.2O24 1S concerned, no doubt it reflects that no authorization was given to Societ5r members to contest O.S.No.266 of 2021. However, no €rrgument is advanced doubting the genurneness of document dated 0g. lO.2024 (Ex.p_2), whereby the District Cooperative Officer authorized Sri G. Subrahmanyam. Although, such authorization is through a communication between the District Cooperative Olficer ald Sri K. Venkat Rao, Advocate \ \ I I 1

12. Through, G.O.Rt.No.42, d.ated, OI.O2.2O2S, the Government gave authorization to the same person i.e., Sri G. Subrahmanyarn along u.ith tw,o other persons. This author ization is given with retrospective effect from l4.OZ .2024 . Thus, even assuming that any hyper technical defect could be traced in the authorization which rtas existing as on the date impugned order was passed, the same pales into insignilicance in view of due authorization from G.O. Rt. No. 42, dated O L .O2.2O25 w.e.f . t4.OZ .2024.

13. [n view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.01.2025. Petition fails and is hereby 6 HAcr (s:{}&4}5[rl dismissed' There strall be no order as to costs' application' if any' pending shall sta'lrd closed' ,TTRUE COPY// Miscellaneous SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR secrWdrrcen t t To, lll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judse-Cum-Pr'";:'fiT;;'; do"t' rtlt"o"n"r-Malkalsiri District at KukatPallY. a;: #'.l. sRlP PRATAP' Advocate [oPucl one cC to SRI KAKARAvii'ixnfn RAo' Advocate toPUCl Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 4 I t J I SSigh $P' .). 14 14: U t{' s( UA11 E 2U5 c{) TL HIGH COURT DATED:0 4tO4tZOZs ORDER CRP.No.416 of 2O2S DISMISSING THE C.R.P. U{ITHOUT COSTS j\- a \ '1.) ( L1