The High Court · 2025

'1. Bhavanam Sridevi Wo Koti Reddy, Occ: Housewite, Rlo H.No. 5-561, Deepthisr,nagar. Road No. 14, Madinaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2. Patancheru Venkat Raju S/o Late Patancheru Swamy, Occ: Business. R/o H.No.4-75, Gangaram, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ... Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to order dated 26.09.2024 passed in lA No.639 of 2024 in OS No. 860 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally in the interest of justice. CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO: 3276 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2024 in tA No.63B of 2024 in os No. aao ot zdiz on the fite of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpalty. Between: Savitha Borkar W/o Durgam Mohan AND ..Petitioner/Plaintiff 1 2 Bhavanam Sridevi Wo Koti Reddy, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No. 5-56i, Deepthisrinaga r, Road No. 14, Midinaguda, Serilingampa y Mandal, iRanga Reddy District PalancheruVenkat Raju S/o Late patancheru Swamy, Occ: Business, R/o !,Nq a-75 Gangaram. Chandanagar. Serilingampall! Mandat, nangi' nLdOV District ... Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 sGy alr furfher proceedings pursuant to order dated 26.09.2024 palsed in lA No. 638 of 2024 in os No. 860 of 2022 on the fire of the court of senior civir Luoge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitaone(s): SRl. D.Ramakrishna, Advocate (in both CRps) Counsel for the Respondent : None appeared (in both CRps) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3273 of 2o24 Civil Revision Petition No.32 76 of 2o.24 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue in the instalt Revisions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of Common Order.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.3273 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner under Articl e 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 26'09'2024 in I.A.No.639 of 2024 in O.S.No.86O of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally; and Civil Revision Petition No-3276 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner under Articl e 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 26'09'2024 in I.A.No.638 of 2024 in O.S.No.86O of 2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (for short, 'the imPugned orders).

3. Heard Mr. D. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in both tt-re Revisions' : I I 2 PSK,J c.P _3273&3)76 _2024

4. Vide the impugned orders, the Trial Court has dismissed the above I.A.s filed by the petitioner herein under Rules 32 & 33 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to permit the petitioner's General Power of Attorney holder, viz., Mr.Durgam Mohal, to adduce evidence on her behalf in the above suit.

5. The above suit is one which was filed by the respondent No.1 herein seeking for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the petitioner ald respondent No.2 herein.

6. When the suit came up for trial, the petitioner (respondent No.2) filed the above LA.s under Sections 32 and 33 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking leave of the Court for being represented through her General Power of Attorney holder, Mr.Durgam Mohan, to adduce el,idence on her behalf in the above suit. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said I.A.'s vide the impugned orders which led to fiiing of the instant Revisions by the petitioner. 7 . The matter has reached the stage of evidence and it is in that situation where evidence of the petitioner herein has to be led in the suit. However, on the soleTground of -i 3 PSK,J <rP _)27 )g)27 6 _2024 ill-health the petitioner sought permission of the Court to be examined through the General Power of Attorney on her behalf. However, no cogent proof of ill-health has been produced by the petitioner 'nor was it supported with any evidence so as to show that she is confined to bed or ttrat she is not in a position to give evidence' Even if the petitioner is not able to move or not' she cal still be examined through an Advocate-Commissioner'

8. As regards the General Power of Attorney being permitted to be examined, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said GPA may not be aware of the factual matrixofthecaseexceptt}ratwhichisconveyedthrough the petitioner (respondent No'2, i'e'' ttre executor of the GPA). In the instant case, the GPA is the husband of the petitioner herein. As a matter of right, it is always open to the petitioner to produce her husband to depose as additional witness to prove the contentions of the petitioner. However, it may not permissible for a party to thesrrittobesubstitutedsofarasleadingevidenceint]re suit through a GPA holder' Such being ttre case' this Court is of the considered opinion that no strong case has ii4i: PSK,J ctp )27)&)276 _2o)4 been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference to the impugned orders passed by ttre Trial Court.

9. Even the decision that has been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Naseem Noorullah vs. Abdul Salaml is one which permitted the party to lead additional evidence of her husband in addition to herself. However, it does not refer to the party to be permitted to be examined through a GPA. Therefore, the said decision would not come to the aid of the petitioner.

10. For a-li the a-foresaid reasons, the Revisions being devoid of any merits deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court has not granted a'rr opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, the right of the petitioner would stand reserved to approach the concerned Trial Court for availing the same in accorddnce with iaw. I 2002 Supreme (A.P.)408 / 5 P5K,J c(P _327)&)276 _2024 L2. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, sha1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SdI L. VIJAYA LAXMI REGISTRAR ASSIST / CTION OFFICER \ To, '1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally' 2. One CC to Sri D Ramakrishna. Advocate IOWi) 3. Two CD Copies $ I I I I i 1 I I HIGH COURT DATED:03 .01.2025 I I ORDER GRP.Nos.3273 &3276 of 2024 EH{ rA l4r ( .q 14 IEB 2[25 I ) (.,( -l .\ t D S cA DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS e9 k* i €