High Court · 2025

Sri. K. Mallikariun s/o Late K. Shankarappa R/o 2-1_43BtA, Nallakunta Hyderabad (novri in usA).R;p. dv niJ'CEi"fi3rau,. nr, K Sanrosh w/o. K. Sharanappa, Rto. 2-1 438i A, ru5ri"LiniJ, nvo;;rij#: sooo44 ...RespondenURespondenUplaintiff lA NO: 1 oF 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying {hat in the circumstances stated rn the.affidavit fibd in supportof the peiitio;, in" Higt C"r;;;r;olr* a stay,all furthe-r proceedings in o.s.No.107 1 of 2017 incruding a[ triar proceedings on the fite of the Hon,bte XXr] !y1io_r Civir Judse, city ciiii bourt,-H-frJrl'oro pending disposal of the present Civil Revision peiition Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. Gayathri Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared f,ltl / Civil Revision Petition N o.21 4 o12025 i [Lt PetitionunderArttcle22ToltheConstitutionoflndiaaggrevedbythe order dated 24-04-2017 passed in l A No 425 of 2o17in O S SR No 3362 of 2017 on the fire of the cor,rt of the XXll Junior civil Judge, city civil court' Hyderabad. Between: M/s Sunnv Assoctates, ngp iiignr.gJrip"llv Hvderabad - 500044' -9y^9ynil R/o' Flat No' 11' Block 14, MlG.ll, ..Petitioner/s I AND ';v;iJ eCA'holder Mr' K Santosh w/o K' Sri.K'Mallikarlun,s/o,LateK.Shankarappa.,Rto,2-1.438lA,Nallakunta Hvderabad (now in usnlH!"p ...ResPonderrUs IA NO: oF 2025 1 Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that.in the circumstances stated in Court rnay be pleasecl to in" p"itt"' ih" .Hign the affidavit filed in .ropJn "i aflow the c.R p. by ."tt,rig'rl,ol tnl docket order-dated 24-04-2)17 passe(l in 1.A.No.425 0t2024 in o s"ruI".i"o7i(;roii on the file of the l'lon'trle XXll Jupior Ci"ir'Jrog". City Civil Court, Hyderabad' T'S' Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt' Gayathri Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 rf-l :] , '.1,, 25 j i I THE HOII'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL cwIL REVI SION PETITIO N Nos.4232 oF 2024& 214 0F ,L COMMOlfoRDER: Since both the matters arise out of the same suit and are interrelated, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner; they were analogously heard. t'

2. CRp No.4232 of 2024 is frled challenging the order dated 29.11.2024 in I.A.No-206 of 2024 in O.S.No.rO Zt of 2OIZ on thp frle of ttre Court of XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courtg Hyderabad (for short, trial Court), whereunder the applicatiorg filed by the petitioner herein/defendant under order vII Rtrler 11(d) of CPC was rejected. The challenge mounted in CRFr No.214 of 2O2S is to the order dared 24.O4.2OI2 in I.A.No.425 of 2OI7 n O.S.No.lO7l of 2017, whereunder the trial Court; allowed the apprication filed by the peritioner herein/defendanr! under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of practice was allowed. 1 3 [,earned counsel for the petitioner, during the course ol" hearing, fairly admitted that outcome of CRp No.4232 of 2024: will decide the fate of other CRp.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits tha t the above suit was frled under the strength o[ Genera] ;;. . 2 ol7. By placing heztrY reliance on Attorney (GPA) dated 29'12'2 counsel for the Petitijner various clauses of GPA, le ",lil,"o submits that a conjoint reading of clauses 3 and 11 of GPA shows that the power was tt":: to the agent in rela:ion to two tenarts only. The narnes of sqid two tenants are spr:Iled out in the opening paragraphs of GPA which does not include ,the name of the petitioner herein"I'n this backdrop' the civil suit is {iled on the strength of GPA which does not g;ive power and strength to file the aforesaid suit against the petitioner herein' Thus, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII F''ule 11(d) of CPC

5. The related matter, as noticed above' challenges the docket order ,lated 24-04.2017 whereby the application frrled 1- under Rule 312 of Civil Rules of?ractice is allou'erl ' 6 No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the petltroner

7. Heard at length. I :t

8. The trial Court in I.A.No.206 of 2024 considered the impact of both clauses 3 and 111 highlighted by ttre petitioner I 3 and opined that the GPA has to be read in entiret5r. The trial Court then observed as under: "1l...Even though the names of the other two tenants are specihcally mentioned in clauses No.3 and 1l as argued by the petitioner, a comprehensive reading of all tle clauses, particularly in conjunction with the frrst paragraph on the first page, reveals that the plaintiff has indeed granted authority to the GPA holder with respect to all three tenants which includes petitioner also. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioner, GPA Dt: 23-ll-2O15 has not conferred power on GPA holder to frle the present suit and without having any right or authorit5r the present suit was instituted by him against the petitioner is not sustainable."

9. In paragraph No.13 of the impugned order, the trial Court opined that the alleged defect in the GPA does not fall within the ambit of 'barred by law' as envisaged in clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The impugrred order makes it clear that at relevant stage, the said question will remain open to be decided. Putting it differently, the ambit, scope and impact of the said GPA can be examined at appropriate stage. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner could not point out that aforesaid alleged defect relating to GPA brings the petitioners'objection within the ambit of 'barred by law'. Thus, the trial Court has taken a plausible view.

10. The principle of 'nip in the bud'can be pressed into service with circumspection. The petitioner could not establish with accuracy and precession and with the aid of any legal authortrt 4 that any such defect in the GPA or based on GPA vrill attrac I Order VII Rule L 1(d) of CPC' t I 1. This is trite that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited' Interference can be made- if order impugned is patently illegal or suffers from palpable procedural impropriety or perversity' Another view is possible' is not a grouncl for interference {See Shalini Shyam Shetty vs' Rajendra Shankar Patilr). In absence of any inppedient pn which interference can be made, interference is declirLed' : I

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applicatiofls pending, if anY, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// sdl- P crl, !+f;$rBHE3iilHit \/ SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheXXllJuniorCivilJudge'CityCivilCourt'Hyderabad .2. OineCC to Smt. Gayathri' Advocate[OPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies kanVgh w- .a 1 k q o \7.\'. 0 i l,ii'{ 2,.il1 i. ,- r\ --..1:- - HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 COMMON ORDER GRP.No.4232 ot 2024 & CRP.No.214 of 2025 DISMISSING OF THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS 6df'b k*