Ramesh Sagar. Advocate. u,ithdreu his Vakalat, due to v. The GPA is still subsisting and is in force and operation

No.4 herein is transposed as plainti No.2 from defendant No.l and respondent Nos. I to 3 herein are de dant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S. No.43 ol 2009. In the suit, there are 2 defendants. However, in the pctition filed in I.A. No.ll98 of 20 4, defendant Nos.2 to 4 shown delendant Nos.5 to 204 as not nece parties, whereas the petitioner herein tiled the present revision wing defendant Nos.2 to 4 as respondent Nos. I to 3 and plaintiff .2 as respondent No.5 only, and 2 Kl-J CRP No.6O5 of2025 neither shown defendant Nos.5 to 204 as parties to the present revlsron, nor as not necessary parties.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their stanrs and rank in the main suit.

5. PlaintiffNo.l is the daughter of PtaintiffNo.2. Initially, she filed the suit against plainriff No.2 and others seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. Later, her father - defendant No.l was transposed as plaintiff No.2 in the said suit vide orders dated

21.07.2011 in I.A. No.54 of 201I and amendmenr of ptainr had atso taken place. I'hus, the suir filed by them against the dcfendants is for partition and separate posscssion of 5/6'h share each out of 15/56h share in respect of plainL schedule - A to G properties. plaintiffNo.l filed the said suit through hcr power ol Attomey Holder, Mr. p. Viplav Kumar.

6. During the pcndencl of the said suit, plaintiff No.l represented by her Power of Attomel tlolder. filcd an Interlocutory Application under Order - XXIII. Rule - I read wirh l5l of CpC, vrde I.A. No.l129 ol 2024. to granr leave/pcrm ission for u.ithdrawal of claim in respect ol surplus lands in Sun,ev Nos.4j8. 439, 442,443, /- KI-,J CRP No 605 of2025 549, 550, 581 and 584, admeasu Acs.27-91 cents, situated at Nagnur Vitlage of Karimnagar Rev ue Mandal and District insofar as item Nos.l, 3, 4, 5, 18, 23 an 24 of plaint Schedule - 'A' properties are concerned as the same in possession and custody of Govemment as admitted by defendan Nos.2 to 4 in the affidavit filed in W.P. No.30182 of 2014.

7. While so defendant Nos 2 to 4 filed an Interlocutory Application under Section - 151 of C ,videl.A. No.l198 of 2024, seeking to return the petition filed y plaintiff No.l under Order - )OCII, Rute - I of CPC as not tainable as it was filed by incompeten t person without valid A and without following the procedure laid down undcr Rules - 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice on the lbllorving grounds: i) The suit was filed by pl tiff No.l through GPA holder without ['ollou,ing the pr ii) The GPA document is ted as it was not ascertained by plaintiff No. I by fil g her personal affidavit before the trial Court \ 4 Kl'J CRP No 605 of2025 iii) Plaintiff No.l did not seek permission of the trial Court to represent the suit proceedings through GPA. iv) Therefore, filing the petition under Order - XXIII, Rule - I of CPC is not maintainable. v) The alleged GPA Holder, Mr. P.Viptav Kumar did not have any valid GPA. vi) Mr. Ramesh Sagar, Advocate, who filed Vakalat on bchalf of plaintiff No.2 is none other than co-brother of plaintiffNo.2 vii) The alleged GPA Holder. Mr. Viplav Kurnar is none other than the own son-in-lan, ol carlier counsel of plaintiff No.2 viii) In view of familv disputcs and srraincd rclarions- Mr. Ramesh Sagar. Advocate. u,ithdreu his Vakalat, due to which, it raises a cloud on validit_v olGpA

8. The Power of Attomev l{oldcr ol l,laintifINo. I lilcd counter affidavit opposing the said application hl.contcnding as I'ollorvs i) The GPA is still subsisting and is in force and operation till conclusion of suiL procccdings. 5 KI.J CRP No.605 of 2025 iD DefendantNos -2 to 4 hav no locus to raise an obiection regarding legality and alidity of GPA executed by plaintiff No.l in his fav r for the reason that the said objection was not raised uring the course of his cross- examination or at the earli t point of time iiD Ptaintiff No.l has given specific power to him to sigrr pleadings and other rel ant affidavits on her behalf under his signah-rre. iv) The relationship menti ed in the affidavit has no relevancy in regard to th issue raised in the application for withdrawal o[ part of it claim. v) The present applicatron filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 with an intention to get o er the plea taken by him in I.A. No. I 129 ol 2024 tlled der Order - )OilI, Rule - I of CPC. vi) The proper person to o ect for him to conduct and prosecute the suit proce ings is plaintiffNo.l, who has executed GPA bearing ocument No.l95 of 2009 on

01.08.2009 to prcsent the ptaint under his sigrratures and give evidence. Instigated y plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.l \ 6 K L,J CRP No.605 of2025 executed document revoking power of attomey signed on

25.04.2022 and attested by Notary Public on 27 .04.2022 in USA and sent him a copy of it while sending a copv to the former counsel for plaintiff No. l. vii) Therefore, he got issued a legal notice to plaintiff No.l through his Advocate on 08.05.2022 in illegally cancelling the GPA and also claimed damages lor Rs.500 lakhs. viii) Thus, his GPA is prorected under Secrion - 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

9. After hearing both sides, vide <trder dated 21.01.2025, leamed trial Court allowed the I.A. No.l l98 of 2024 reruming the petition filed byplaintiffNo.l videI.A. No.i 129 ol'2024 b1 granring liberty to plaintiff No.l to file similar applicarion on her own or through proper GPA holding: i) Mr. P. Viplav Kumar filed the application under Order - XXIII, Rule - I of CPC on behall-of ptaintitT No. l. ii) It is settled proposition of law rhat when a suir is filed by an Agent on behalf of Principal. it is thc duty of such an , Agent to furnish the proof ot' authoritl, given b_r' the 7 KL,I CRP No.6o5 0f2025 Principal to him to pro ute the proceedings. Unless the person who is acting on ehalf of the Principal proves his authority to prosecute, cannot be permitted to file suit or cofltest the proceed in iii) According to the GPA older, the GPA is in existence, but in the counter he h mentioned that plaintiff No.l revoked the power o[ attomey vrde document dated

25.04.2022. The said d cument is not fi led before the trial Court either by ptai tiff No.1 or by any of the PartY to the suit

10. Challenging the said i pugned order, the Power of Attomey Holder filed the present rcv ion on the following grounds: i) The impugned order is z/tr -vlres olthe Chapter X oflndian Contract Act, 1872 and contrary to the Provisions of Sections - 182 to 23tl otCo tract Act iD The alleged deed of revoca ion of GPA executed in the USA was notarized by a Notat-r' Public in USA. It was neither validated nor registcred u dcr Scction - 26 of the Indian Registration Act and. thu it has no value and will not 8 KI-.J CRP No 605 ol-102i invalidate the GPA executed in favour of l)orver of Attomev Holder. iii) The appointment of GPA and revocation of it is a marter betr,r,een the Principal and Agent. iv) Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no legal right to ask for inquiring into the tegality and validity of GpA by fiting applicarion under Rules - 32 and 33 ofCRp. v) Plaintiff No. I was in Hanamkonda Town for more than four (04) months after she purportedly revoked the GpA. She did not take any step to get the cancellation of CpA registered as per law and procedure. I I Whereas, Mr. Alladi Ravinder, Ieamed Senior Counscl reprcscnting Mr. J. Srinadh Reddy, leamed counscl lbr respondcnr Nos.2 to 4, rvould submit that plaintiffNo.l has alreadl cancelled thc powcr ol attorney bearing document No.l95 of 2009 exccuted by hcr appointing Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, as power of Attomey on 25.04.2022 itse ll. He is aware of the said fact. Even in the counrer filed bt him in t.A. No.l198 of 2024, he has admitted the said fact. -l.heretbre. cannot repres(rnr plaintiff No.l i.e., Mrs. Guduru Vccra Nishitha as 9 KI,.J CRP No.605 ot2025 power of atlomey holder. Validity o the said cancellation cannot be considered in the present case. If the ou,er of attomey holder has any grievance with regard to the said cellation, he has to initiate separate proceedings. Thus, pow of attomey holder cannot represent the Principal i.e,, plaintiff o.l. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated 21.01. 25 in I.A. No. I 198 of 2024 in I.A. No.l129 of 2024 in O.S. No.43 t 2009, the trial Court allowed the said application and the petition led under Order - XXIII, Rute - 1 of CPC videl.A. No.ll29 of 2024 led Mr. P. Viplav Kumar as her Power of Attorney Holder is liable to retumed. There is no elTor ln lt. ANALYSTS AND FINDINGS OF T E COURT

12. The aforesaid rival sub issions and perusal ol record would reveal that Mrs. Guduru V ra Nishitha. plaintiff No.l had executed a registered Power of Atto ey bearing document No. 195 of 2009 dated 01.08.2009 in favour Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, to do certain acts on her behalf including ling o[ suit lbr partition etc. On the strength of the said GPA repres ting the Principal, he has [iled O.S. No.43 of 2009 seeking partitio and separate posscssion of suit schedules 'A' to 'D' properties. Dur ng pendency of the said suit, Mr l0 KI-,,, CRP No 605 of20li P. Viptav Kumar representing plaintiffN.l as her power of Attomey Holder, filed an interlocutory application vide l.A. No.l l29 of 2024 under Order - XXIII, Rule - I read with l5l of CpC to grant leave/permission for withdrawal of claim in respect of surplus lands in Survel, Nos.43 8, 439, 442, 443, 549, 550, 581 and 584. admeasuring Acs.27.9l cents, situated at Nagnur Village of Karimnagar Revenrre Mandal and Disrricr i.e., item Nos.l, 3, 4, S, lg, 23 and. 24 of plaint Schedule - 'A' properties. The said application is pending.

13. During pendency of the said application, defendant Nos.2 to 4 llled I.A. No. I 198 of 2024 under Section - 151 of CpC, ro rerurn l.A. No.lt29 of'2024 on rhe ground that plaintiff No.l has alreadl cancclled thc alirresaid power of attomey executed in favour of Mr. P.Viplav Kumar by way of execution of cancellation of power ot attomcv on 25.01.2022. It is relevant to note that in thc counter filcd in thc said application, the power of aftomey holder of plaintiff No. I admitted about the cancellation of power of attorney on 25.04.2022. According to hinr. the said cancellation is not in accordance rvith law, 'fherefore, he can continue as power of attomey holder ol plaintifl. No. l. XL.J CRP No 605 ot 2025

14. In the light of the above scussion, it is relevant to note that Section - 182 ofthe Indian Con t Act, 1872 defines'Agent' and 'Principal' and it says that an "ag " is a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom s act ls done, or who is so represented, is called the ' principal".

15. Section - 201 ofthe Con Act describes various modes of termination of agency and the same is extracted as under: "201. Termination of agency. An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his thority; or by thc agent renouncing the business of the ency; or by the business of the agency being completed; agent dying or becoming of principal being adjudicated by either the principal or ound mind; or by the lnsolvent under the provisions of any Act for the e being in lorcc lbr the relief ol insolvent debtors."

16. Section - 203 deals with evocation by Principal and the same is extracted as under: "203.When principal may ke agent's authority-- The principal may, save as is ise provided by the last preceding sectiog revoke the a ority given to his agcnt at any time before the authority been exercised so as t0 bind the principal." t2 KL.J CRI' No 605 of 2025

17. It is relevant to note that Rule - 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice deals with 'party appearing by Agent, and Rute - 33 deals with 'signing ol verification by Agent, and the same are extracted as under: "32. Pafi appcaring by Agent:- a. \['tren a paq, appears by any agent, other than an advocate, the agent shall, before making of or doing any appearance, application, or act, in or to the court, tlle in court the power of attomey, or written authority, thereunto authorizing him or a properly authenricated copy thereof together with an affidavit that the said authority still subsisting, or, in the case ol agent carrying on a trade or business on behaif of a party. rvirhout a wriften authority, an affidavit stating rhc residence of his principal, the trade or business carricd on by the agent on his behalf and principal. thc rradc or business carried on by the agent on his bchalt- and the connection of the same u ith thc sub.ject-matter of the suit, and that no other agent is cxpressly authorised to make or do such appearance. application, or act. h.The Judge nrav thereupon record in writing that the agent is pormitted to appear and act on behalf of the pa4,: and unless and until the said permission is granted. n() zrppearancc. apptication, or act, of the agent shall bc recognized by the Court.,, l3 KL,J CRP No 605 of202i "33. Signing of verification by Ii any proceedings, which gent:- any provision of law or these rules, is required to be s or verified by a party, is signed or verified by any authority in this behalf signed court, together with an affidavit on his behall a written ttt pu.ty shall be filed in verifuing the signature of the parff, and stating the verifu the proceedings and knowledge or the facts set out of his inability to sign or standing the means of in the proceeding o[ the person signing or veriffing the ame and that such person is a recognized agent of the as dehned by order III Rule 2 of the Code and is duly rized and competent so to do."

18. Order - III, Rules - I and of CPC deals with 'recognized Agents and Pleaders and the same are hereunder ORI) R-III RECOGNIZED AGENTS l. Appearances, etc., may be agent or by pleader. - PLEADERS person, by recognized Any appearance, application o act in or to any Cour1, required or authorized by law be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise express [y' provided by any law lor the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or his recognized agent. or by a pleader appearing, appl or acting, as the case tnal be on his behall: t4 (I.J CRP No.605 of2025 Provide that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs. be made by the parry in person.

2. Recognized agent. - The recognized agent of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are- (a) persons ho lding porvers-o l-attomey, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behall of such partiesl \c, --..J...6 Ye.rrtrr Ih\ n-rcnnc romrino ^h rrq;a ^. k,,.i---. f^. ^-,.1 :^ rL- names of parties nor resident rvithin the local limits of the jurisdiction o[ the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected s'ith such trade or business only, where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances. applications and acts.',

19. In view, of the albresaid discussion and the provisions of law, the only point that lalls lor consideration before this Court is: Whether Mr. P. Viplav Kumar. Power of Attomey Holder of plaintiff No.1 i.e., Ms- Guduru Veera Nishitha. can represent his principal despite cancellation of registered power of Attorney bearing document No.t95 of 2009. dated 01.08.2009, by way of executing cancellation deed dated 25.04.2022? f t l5 KL,J CRP No 6Oi ot2025

20. The procedure contemplat under Rules - 32 and 33 ofthe Civil Rules of Practice is not mand It is a curable defect. It is also settled law that any such revoc on of GPA would come into force only from the date ofsuch revo on and all the acts and deeds committed by the Agent on behalf f and for the Principal prior to date of revocation of GPA would ntinue to be binding on the Principal, as if the said documents ere executed by the PrinciPal, however, subject to proof of such having been done by attomey on behalf o[ the Principal subject to compliance of the conditions if any imposed under the said GPA, such acts are done in terms of the GPA.

21. [n the present case, pl tiff No.l had executed the aforesaid GPA bearing document No. 95 of2009 on 01.08.2009. She has cancelled the said GPA by way of execution of cancellation ol power of attomey dated 25.04.2022. Mr. P. Viplav Kumar, Power ol Attomey Holder is aware of the said fact. He has admitted the same in the counter I'iled by him in I.A. o.1198 of 2024. According to him, he got issued [ega[ notice on

8.05.2022 to the Principal i.e.. plaintiff No. I questloning the sai cancellation and sought fbr t6 KI.J CRP No.6os of2025 damages. Even then, he has filed I.A. No. I 129 of 2024 on 25.11 .2024 representing plaintiff No. I as her Attomey Holder seeking leave/permission for withdrawal of claim in respect of surptus land in the aforesaid survey numbers. The said IA is pending. Thereafter, defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed I.A. No. I 198 of 2024 under Section - l5l of CPC ro retum I.A. No.l l29 of 2024. Thus. admittedly, the GPA executed by plaintiff No. I vide document bearing No.l95 of 2009 on 01.08.2009 was cancelled by plainriff No.l by way of executing cancellation of pou,er of attomey on 25.04.2022. Therefore, power of attomey hotder cannot represent the principal. If there is any dispute with regard ro cancellarion of the said registered GPA bearing document No. 195 of 2009 dated 01.08.2009, he has to take steps separately. He cannttt contend that he can continue to represent his Principal.

22. He has already sent a legal notice claiming damages from his Principal. The said issue i.e.. issuance of legal notice and claiming damages by the Power of Attomel Holdcr lrom plaintiff No.l is nothing to do with the present proceedings. Once the power of attomey executed by his Principal is cancelled, he cannot represent the Prfu{rpal. On coming 1o knor,v about the said canccllation. it is his t7 KI.' CRP No 605 of2025 duty to inform the trial Court abo the cancellation of power of attomey. Instead bringing it to the n ce of trial Court, he continued to represent his PrincipaI and filed I.A No.1 129 of 2024 under Order - XXIII, Rule - I of CPC seeking leave/ ermission to withdraw claim in respect of surplus land in the aforesai survey numbers. The same is impermissible. On consideration of th said facts only, vide imPugned order dated 21.01.2025, the trial Cou allowed I.A. No.ll98 of 2024 retuming I.A. No.1l29 of 2024. H wever, the trial Court granted tiberty to plaintiff No. I to file si tar application on her own or through proper GPA.

23. Mr. L. Venkateshwar leamed counsel for the petitioner herein has placed reliance on the principle laid down rn Natubhai Chotbhai Patel v atnam Shakunthalal, more particularly paragraph No. I 5. which i extracted as under: " 15. A partl genera[ly ented by an Advocate This provision enables an ent to represent the Party. This provision has been in oduced to discourage the parties to appoint the agen to repres€nt them in the Courts than the legal p actitioners. The wording "when a party" aPPears b any agent other than an Advocate" used in Rule 3 clearly indicates that the 20 t4 (4) ALD 55i l8 KL,J CRP No.605 of2025 authorization is for all purposes including the tiling ol the pleadings, examination of the witnesses, marking of the documents and advancing of the arguments, which is generally expected to be performed by an Advocate who is a legal expert in the field. Ifan agent represents the party, he may not knou, the implications and complications of the issues involved in the mafter, thereby it is tikely to cause injustice to the party. If the party prepares to take the risk of aur.hcrizing an agent. it is an indicarion ihai ihc par.)* is prepared to reap the consequences by appointing an agent. In order to make sure that the pa(y authorized the agent to represent him in the matter, an afEdavit is necessary. But in cases ofauthorizing an agent to sign the pleadings while authorizing a tcgal practirioner to appear on his behalt it is sufticient if the court is satisfied that hc was authorized to sign and in such a case, the filing of an aftldavit is not mandatory, therefore, the defect can be cured at a later stage also by convincing the court that the ageni u,as duly authorized by the respective party in that ntatrer. But if an agent is authorized to undertake the signing of pleadings, adducing of evidence and advancing of arguments, the agent shall be permifted in r,r,riting and the party has to file an affidavit that he has duly authorized the agent to represent him inslead of an Advocate. In case of a party executing a (ieneral Power of Aftomey in f'avour of another pcrson. the General Power of Attorney holder also cannot be 19 KI.J CRPNo.6O5 of m2s permitted to represent party in the suit for all purposes namely to sign evidence and to adv affidavit is filed by the the pleadings, to addrrce urrguments trnless an aflirming that trc has authorized his General Po r of Attomey holder to represent his case for t above purposes. But for mere signing ol the pleadi on behalf of ttre party duly represented by an Ad ocate, permission from the court is not necessary by ay ol filing an aftidavit to that effect. [t is sufficient the agent or power of authorized to sign the ple authorization, which w the court is satisfred that attorney holder is duly ings, after perusal of such filed along with the pleadings."

24. In the present case, the Pr ipal has cancelled the power of attomey executed by her in {'avour o Mr. P. Viplav Kumar. He is aware of the said lbct. [ [c has admitt the same in the counter filed byhim in [.A. No. t 198 ot'2024. t:vc then. he has filed I.A. No.l129 of 2024 after cancellation o f pou.er o I attomcy executed in his favour. Thereforg the facts in thc aloresaid d ision are different to dre facts of the present case

25. As discusscd abovc. [ilin I A. No. I 129 of 2024 by Mr. I I Viplav Kumar, Pon'cr of Attomcl, {older o[ Ptaintiff No.l after I canc.ellation of pow,er of afiorne! and having knowledge of the same \ 20 KL.J CRP No 605 of202t is contrary to the procedure [aid down under Civil Rules ol Practice and also the Contract AcL He cannot represent his Principal after cancellation of powg, r of attomey.

26. On consideration of the said facts, vide impugned order dztet 21.01.2025, learred trial Court allowed l.A. No. I198 of 2024 retnming I.A. No.lI29 of 2024. It is a reasoned order and wel[- [ounded and there is no error, much less jurisdictional error in the said order. The petitioner failed to make out any case to interlere u'ith the impugned order. Thus, the present revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.

27. The pnesent Civil Revision Petition is accordingll, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case. there shall be no ordcr as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, iI an1'. pending in the revision shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI FFICEf i To, 1 The I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar ? 9ne QQ to Qr! L,Venkateshwar Rao , Advocate (OPUC) 3 One CC to Sri J.Srinadh Reddy , Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CD Copies Ks/gh o,a- \\,tr J ?. i ilf Sj i,{-r o o^. 11 AUE 2S6 ;l o- ,.) !, HIGH COURT DATE D : 2 2lO4l2O25 ORDER CRP.No.605 of 2025 Dismissing the C.R.P Without costs. [)+\rl it f+ Jrr