The High Court · 2025

Heard Mr. Papaiah Peddakula, leamed cou .sel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the resident of United State ; of America (USA). He has filed a petition under Section - 6 ,f the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Order - VII, Rule - 1 and Section l5l of CPC, seeking a direction to respcr dent to hand over the custody of minor child, Anina Gajjala, to hinr Since he is resident of USA, he has executed a General Power of Art rrney (GPA), dated29.04.2025, appointing his father, Mr.Gajjala Mah:ndra Reddy, as his Power of Attorney Holder

3. In the said GPA, it is specifically menti,,ned that he empowered his Power of Attomey Holder ro act on ris behalf in connection with criminal cases, lamily disputes u i h his wife, including filing cases and defend cases on his behel' before any appropriate legal Forum or Authority. He has also I rthorized his father to appoint advocates or legal counsel on his t:half for the 2 KI, J CRPNo.36t9 of2025 purpose of conducting legal proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner represented by his father as power of aftomey holder filed the aforesaid petition vide GWOP SR No.1079 of 2025 before learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal. He has also filed an application under Rule - 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice (CRP), vide l.A. No.486 of 2025 permitting him to represent the petitioner.

4. Vide impugned order dated 25.08.2025, leamed Family Court dismissed the said application holding that the Principal has not engaged any counsel whatsoever. The Vakalatnama is signed by the GPA Holder, appointing an advocate, and it amounts to the GPA holder acting not just as an Agent for signing pleadings, but as the defacto litigant and the client of the advocate. Learned Family Court also placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in M. Ruhina Khan v. Abdur Rahman Khanr.

5. The trial Court also gave the following reasons: I The right to practice law and to represent a pafty in judicial proceedings is governed by thc Advocates Act, 1961. An AdVocate enrolled under the Act is entitled to represent a party before any '. 2or8 (5) ALD 461 J KL, J aRP No.3689 of2025 Court. A GPA Holder unless he is himself a quali ied advocate, cannot assume this role. By engaging counsel by (k'r eral Power of Attorney holder for a suit or proceeding fi[ed lor his principal, the GPA holder is effectively attempting to act as a condtt, t, which blurs the lines of professional responsibility and accoutLt rbility of the advocate towards the real party-in-interest.

11. The matter in question is one of custody o[ a min I child. Such proceedings are inherently s uigener is. The welfare o' he child is the paramount consideration for the Cou(. The Court'; lurisdiction is patemal and supervisory. It is imperative for the C t urt to interact with, observe, and receive instructions directly from t Le person who seeks the sacred responsibility ol custody - the part:r t or guardian. Allowing a case of this nature to be prosecuted entirr y by a proxy, without the direct engagement of thc principal paren . vith the Court or even with his own lawyer, is contrary to the ver) ature of these proceedings. The principal's absence from the entite legal process, including the engagement of his counsel, raises stt ous questions about his bona fide interest and commitment to th( ,r,elf are of the child.

6. The trial Court also held that failure to file an r lidavit under Rule - 33 of CRP from the Principal is not a mere tet:l nical curable 4 KL, J CRP No.3589 of202s defect in this context. It is a symptom of the complete abdication of the principal from the judicial process. Rule - 33 is designed to ensure that the Court has prima facie proof of the agent's authority. In sensitive matter, like the present one, this requirement is not formality but a necessity to prevent the misuse of the Court's process. The GPA said to have executed abroad, but it does not show that it is validated in India.

7. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revls10n.

8. As discussed above, the petitioner herein is the resident of USA. He is a Software Engineer. He has disputes with his wife, the respondent herein. Therefore, he has appointed his father as his Attomey Holder to file case and to defend the same. He has also appointed his father as Agent to appoint counsel to file and to defend the case. There is specific assertion to the said effect in the GPA. The said GPA was notarized at USA.

9. The Power of Attomey Holder of the petitioner has filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.486 of 2025 in GWOP SR No.1079 of 2025 to permlt him to represent the Principal, his son. 5 KL, J CRP No 1689 of2025 Therefore, the trial Court cannot dismiss the said applic rtion holding that it is not validated in India.

10. As discussed above, the petitioner herein is t re resident of USA. There is no need of validating the said GPA as of served by the trial Court. In the light of the specific assertion in the fPA, there is no need of fiting an affidavit by the petitioner under Rt [e - 33 of the CRP. Without considering the said aspects, the trial Ct urt dismissed the said application filed by the GPA holder of the petiti rner to permit him to represent the petitioner.

11. The objection raised by the leamed trial Cr urt regarding non-compliance of Rule - 33 of the Civil Rules t I Practice is unsustainable in law. It is a settled proposition that r I e said rule is lntended to ensure that the Court is satisfied about the e rthority of an agent representing a party. The Erstwhile High Ccr rt ol Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Janab Syed KazimSaheb I Syed Pasha Sahebz categorically held that non-compliance of RtLle - 33 ofl Civit Rules of Practice carmot result in dismissal of a suit < r proceeding, and that such defect, being technical, is curable at ltt:r stage upon r. t989 SCC Ont.ine AP 502 6 KL, I CRP N0.3669 of202i proper veriflcation of authorization. In paragraph No.23 0f the said Judgment, it was held as follows:- "(23) In my judgment, therefore, though in so far as the presentation of the plaint signed and verified by the power of attomey holder coupled with the very power of attomey executed in his favour filed in the court, does not require any permission from the court, for, an advocate, duly appointed by the said power of attomey holder, duly authorising him in this bchalf, entered appearance in the court. But however in order to hold the said plaint to be vatid, it must be accompanied by an affidavit of the executant ol the GpA in terms of rule 33. The absence of the said afhdavit. as in this case, however, does not in my view invalidate the suit resulting in dismissal thereof..."

12. A similar view was taken in Ruhina Khan v. Abdur Rahman Khan3, wherein this court elaborated the distinction between Rules - 32 a..d 33, observing that where a General power of Attomey holder merely signs pleadings or engages counsel on behalf of the principal, an affidavit under Rule - 33 is not mandatory. This position was subsequently reiterated recently by this court in swathi Srivatsav v. Rohit Kumara holding that even if there exists a procedural lapse in filing such affidavit, the same is a curabre '. zo 18 t5 t at-o ler o. Cnp NfiOOa of z024, decided on 2 t 06.20:{ 7 KL. J CRP No.]6E9 of2025 irregularity and cannot defeat substantive justice. Ihe relevant paragraph is extracted as follows:- "20. Secondly, the Court below in the Iast para o!' he impugned order opined that the petitioner has lo ile Rule 33 petition along with petition under Rule i2. This Court in Ruhina Khan (cited supra) mad t it crystal clear that the requirement to frle petit on under Rule 33 is not mandatory. Even if there e r ;ts a defect in this regard, the same can be cured at [i Ler stage by the petitioner. The said findings of a binJ ng judgment have escaped notice of the Court b<:l rw while passing the impugned order.

21. The procedural law is made to achieve ju;r ce and not to defeat it. In the opinion of this Coun. he Court below has not taken the view to advance he cause of justice and indeed permitted itself t< be strangulated by h1,per technicalities. This is settled rw that all the rules of procedure are the handmai,l of justice. The Apex Court in Sangram Singlr v. Election Tribunal, Kotah opined that a codt: of procedure must be regarded as such. It is "procedru i', something designed to facilitate justice and furthe r its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment rnd penalties; not a thing designed to hip people up. 'oo technical a construction of sections that leaves no r: ,rn lor reasonable elasticity of interpretation sh.l rld therelbre be guarded against......." 8 KL, J CRP Nol6E9 of2025

13. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the present case, it is evident that the petitioner, being a resident of the United States of America, had executed a duly notarized General power of Attorney authorizing his father to act and appoint counsel on his behalf. Therefore, the failure to file a separate affidavit under Rule 33 could not have been treated as a substantive defect warranting dismissal of the application. The trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to cure the said irregularity by hling a proper affidavit, instead of rejecting the application outright. The impugned order, founded solely on a technical omission, is thus contrary to the settled law and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of facts and law, and it is liable to be set aside.

14. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed serting aside the impugred order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the leamed Family Court in I.A. No.486 of 2025 in GWOp SR No. 1079 of 2025. I.A. No.486 of 2025 is allowed permitting Mr. Gajjala Mahendra Reddy, father of the petitioner and power of Attomey l{older, to represent the petitioner in GWOP SR No. 1079 of 2025. In the circumstances ofthe cases, there shall be no order as to costs. ffi*.i &*}'tr' '", 9 KL. ] CRP No.l6E9 of2025 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if rr ,y, pending in the revision shall stand closed. [. OSMAN ALIBAIG GISTRAR ASSII //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, '1. The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, MedCha - /lalkajgiri District at Medchat. (with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. Papaiah Peddakula, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DAIED:1011012025 ORDER CRP.No.3689 of 2025 I \ Z ( )., <.1 '.,\9'\)'\f. 1 .: I€ J t * ',n,- ( I'IVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED. e \.'}"