Ruhina Khan v. Abdur Rahman Khanr, wherein it is.held that Rule

Counsel for the petitioner(s): SRI R A ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondents: SRIKANTH HARIHARAN The Court made the foltowing: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAIIGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.803 of 2025 llth DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between: G. Uma Shankar and two others. AND P. Madan Mohan Rao and another. ORDER: ...Petitioners ...Respondents Heard Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ganta Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.l, 3 and 4, aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2025 in I.A.No.449 of 2024 in O.S.No.1241 of 2024 on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ('trial Court'), wherein a petition filed under Rule t 32 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking permission to the GPA holder of the petitioners to represent the defendant Nos.l to 4 and to do all the acts, deeds, and things on their behalf as their GPA holder, has been dismissed with the following order: \ \. RY,J cRP_803_2025 "In the result, this petition is dismissed without costs. The petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh application, which must be accompanied by a duly executed General Power of Attomey from the legal heirs of defendant No.2. The application must also be updated to reflect the correct position of all concerned parties including the other defendants.,'

3. The brief background facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are that respondent No. r/plaintiff filed suit for mandatory , injunction and perpetual injunction against the petitioners/defendant No.l, 3 and 4 and the deceased defendant No.2 seeking relief of mandatory injunction to remove the illegal erection and encroachment of common passage of width 4 feet 9 inches unauthorized structure in the suit scheduling property bearing House No. 4- l-zz/Al admeasuring 104 square yards situated at Hanumantekadi, Hyderabad, perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners and deceased defendant No.2 from raising any, construction over the suit schedule property northem portion of Shop No. 4-l-22/Al and to restrain defendant Nos. l, 3-and 4 and deceased defendant No.2 from leasing out the Shop No. 4- l-22/Al in favour of third parties. In said suit, the petitioners along with the deceased defendant No.2 have b ) executed a GPA in favour of one Harbhajan Singh, s/o.Late sewak Singh, to represent them in the suit. However, subsequently, defendant No.2 died. While so, the remaining defendants i.e., the petitioners herein got a petition , filed under Rule 32 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice to permit said Harbhajan 2 / { i I i -2,.. // 1 j.-' RY,J cRP_803 202s Singh to represent all the petitioners and deceased defendant No.2 in the suit. 4' when said petition was filed respondent No.l herein filed counter affidavit stating that defendant No.2 G. Ramu expired and the petition is filed representing all the petitioners including defendant No.2, as if the GPA is still subsisting. once defendant No.2, who is one of the signatory to the GPA died, said document has become a defective document. Therefore, the docket order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the triar court directing the plaintiffs to bring the legal representatives of defendant No.2 on record, but the detairs are not furnished by the GpA horder. The GpA holder has disobeyed the court order. In spite of granting two months of time, the legar representatives of defendant No.2 were not brought on record and said fact shows that the GPA is not in contact with his principal. Ever since the GpA was executed in the year )00s, the GpA horder is misusing his power without firing the affidavit under Rure 33 of civil Rules of Practice. Respondent No.l preaded that the GpA document is not maintainable, as the same is an invarid document, as one of the executors died. The GpA has taken signatures of the daughters of the deceased G. veersham, but did not do the same with legar heirs of the deceased G. \u*u i'e' defendant No. 2. since the executors are not in contact with the \\ 3 r RY,J cRP 803 2025 GPA holder and the GPA is used for protecting illegal possession for one- or the other reason. In view of the foregoing defects, in the affidavit as well as the order passed by the trial Court, it is prayed that the petition needs to be dismissed.

5. After hearing case of both the parties, the learned trial Court held that though the GPA has been effectively executed while all of them were still alive, on account of death of one of the executants said document h6s become defective. The GPA was executed by multiple parties including the deceased defendant No.2 and said document's validity continues with respect to the surviving defendants/petitioners. With respect to the defect on account of death of the deceased defendant No.2, it is held that the GPA holder needs to take steps to procure consent of the legal heirs of the deceased executor to restore the legal validity of the GPA. Alternatively, the GPA holder has to file fresh GPA which'is executed by the surviving defendant i.e. the petitioners herein. In view of the foregoing, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition granting liberty to file fiesh application , accompanied by a duly executed GPA from the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 together with an application reflecting the correct position of all the concerned parties. The said order led to filing of the present revision petition. / r' / 4 1 I i . 6' RY,J cRP_803 2025 In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that under Rule 32 (z)of civir Rules of practice, permission can be granted to represent a matter by an agent on beharf of his principars. As per memo dated 02.09.2024, defendant No'2 died and on 09'09' 2024 a memo was filed withdrawing vakalath for defendant No'2' The said fact shows that the agent had no knowledge about death of his principal until the notice was given by respondent No.I herein. The GPA fired was executed by murtipre principals i.e. petitioner Nos. r to 3 herein jointly authorizing him to se, and administer the properry including signing and execution of sale deeds and other proceedings. on account of death of one of the principar, the GpA to said extent stands revoked' Except dealing with the position of law, the trial court ought not to have expressed the willingness to take the GpA from the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No-2. The joint powers granted to the GpA horder are not vitiated on account of the death of one of the principals, though the interest of the deceased cannot be represented by the agent. The court could have granted permission to the GPA holder to represent the surviving principals and there can be no direction for appointment of fresh GpA holder for the legar heirs of the deceased defendant No.2. 7 - During arguments, the leamed counser for petitioners reried upon judgment of the High court of Judicature ar Hyderabad in the case of \ I\ 5 RY,J cRP 803 2025 Ruhina Khan v. Abdur Rahman Khanr, wherein it is.held that Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice is not mandatory since to be an oversight as it is Rule 33 which was held to be not mandatory. But no mention was made of the said Rule in the concluding paragraph. When a legal practitioner appears for the principal and the GPA holder undertakes not only signing of pleadings but also job of a legal practitioner, he must necessarily file affidavit of the principal authorizing him to do so. It is further held that as long as GPA holder is able to demonstrate that he had the authority to sign such pleadings on behalf of his principals, sufficient compliance with Rule 33 of Civil Rules of Practice is made out.

8. The facts and circumstances of the case reveal that in a suit filed seeking mandatory injunction and permanent injunction by respondent No.l, the petitioners herein and the deceased defendant No.2 have authorized one Harbhajan Singh to represent him as a GpA holder in dealing with the suit schedule property and doing all the acts including administering said property, executing sale deeds and representing in other * proceedings. When the suit was filed in the year 2024, the GpA holder represented the petitioners and the deceased defendant No.2. A memo was filed on 02.09.2024 by respondent No.l informing that defendant No.2 died. Only after said memo was filed, the GPA holder of the petitioners has ' uaruu/yvlot3s/2ot8 .t 5 i RY,J cRP 803 202s filed a memo dated 09.09.2024 withdrawing vakalath for the deceased defendant No.2 as agent i.e., as an agent, the GpA holder had no knowledge about the death of one of his principal. 9- Be that as it may, the question that fell for consideration before the trial Court is about the validity of the GPA produced by the GPA holder of petitioners to represent them in the matter. Once the deceased defendant No.2 died to said extent the GPA has become an invalid document. However, said GPA was valid flor the purpose of representing the remaining principals i.e. the petitioners herein. When a petition was filed by the GPA holder to represent the petitioners' herein by filing a GpA which also had the name of the deceased defendant No.2, the two available courses for the trial Coum would have been to dismiss the petition on the premise that the GPA is defective or allow the petition partly, permitting the GPA holder to represent the surviving principals. However, the Court certainly should not have directed the GpA holder to procure the GpA executed by the legal representatives of defendant No.2 and to file a fresh + application. To said effect, though the application of law could was proper, the relief granted was erroneous. ,/ 7 RY,J cRP 803 2025 10. [n view of the foregoing discussion, the petition filed by the GPA .+.\r holder of the petitioners was defective and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court needs to be modified. I l. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 in I.A.No.449 of 2024 in O.S.No.124l of 2024 and allowing t.A.No.449 of 2024 partly by permitting the GPA holder Harbhajan Singh to represent the revision petitioners only. The remaining extent of the GPA holder-Harbhajan Singh representing the deceased defendant No.2 or his legal representatives is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/. K.BHAVANI SWAMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The lll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderabad, Hyderabad District 2. One CC to SRI R A ACHUTHANAND Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I VM/PR I . IW\,, t)// 8 HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212025 / I i ) ORDER CRP.No.803 ot 2025 THE S a (-) 1 6 JAll 2O2E * -t ' :':'. '' f-''1..i DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION . v