GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and decree in Small cause Suit No. 8 of 1999 dated 26th March, 2002 on the file of the learned Senior Civil judge, Sathupalli.

( 2 ) THE suit was one for recovery of money basing on chit agreement for an amount of rs. 4,000/- and for subsequent interest. On examination of PWs-1 to 3 and getting marked Exs. A-1 to A-13 on behalf of the plaintiffs and on examination of DW-1 on behalf of the defendants, the Court below decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the said judgment and decree, as already referred above, this revision is filed before this court.

( 3 ) THE main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kilaru Khader baba is that the very institution of the suit by the respondents herein is contrary to Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when once a suit is instituted by the agent on behalf of the principal as contemplated under Rule 32, an affidavit is to be filed and the Court below, only after permitting the said agent, can proceed further with the suit, and in this connection the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Rule 32 of Civil rules of Practice.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Rajamalla Reddy contended that the Court below proceeded in deciding the suit only after granting permission and as such the contention put- forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to page 13 of the judgment of the Court below.

( 5 ) HEARD both the learned counsel.

( 6 ) BEFORE deciding the revision, it is necessary to extract Rule 32 as it is: "rule 32 Party appearing by Agent: (1) When a party 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, file in court the power of attorney, or written authority, thereunto authorizing him or a properly authenticated copy thereof together with an affidavit that the said authority still subsisting, or, in the case of an agent carrying on a trade or business on behalf of a party, without a written authority, an affidavit stating the residence of his principal, the trade or business carried on by the agent on his behalf and the connection of the same with the subject-matter of the suit, and that no other agent is expressly authorized to make or do such appearance, application, or act. (2) The Judge may thereupon record in writing that the agent is permitted to appear and act on behalf of the party; and unless and until the said permission is granted, no appearance, application, or act, of the agent shall be recognized by the court.

( 7 ) FROM the abovesaid Rule it is clear that the agent, if he wants to prosecute any lis on behalf of the principal, has to file an affidavit initially and it is only after accepting the affidavit and permitting the said agent the Court can proceed further. Keeping the said Rule in mind, now I proceed to deal with the present revision.

( 8 ) THE learned Senior Civil Judge has framed as many as 5 issues. However, issues 1 and 2 are relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision, which are as follows: 1. Whether the foreman PW-1 is entitled and authorized to file the present suit against D-1 to D-4? 2. Whether the suit was filed violating rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice?

( 9 ) AT paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment, the learned Judge decided issue No. 2 before deciding the other issues. From this it is very clear that the learned Senior. Civil judge before deciding the suit on merits has decided the maintainability of the suit. As per the judgment, the first point that was decided was issue No. 2 i. e. whether the suit was filed violating Rule 32 of Civil Rules of practice, and the discussion on this aspect is as follows:"in the list of documents SI. No. 9 is dated 19-4-1999 which is an affidavit of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document