( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17th February, 2000 in I. A. No. 90 of 2000 in O. S. No. 1007 of 1993 on the file of the Court of II Senior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Revision Petitioner, who is the defendant, is the petitioner in I. A. No. 90 of 2000. Respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) O. S. NO. 1007 of 1993 was filed seeking a decree against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit schedule premises. According to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule premises, which has been let out to the father of the defendant under an oral agreement. After the death of her father, defendant continued as a tenant and has been carrying on hotel business under the name and style of Tehran cafe. Since the defendant failed to pay the agreed rent in spite of the repeated requests, plaintiff has been constrained to file O. S, no. 1007 of 1993 seeking recovery of possession.

( 3 ) AFTER the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was closed and while the suit was coming up for the evidence of defendant, the general Power of Attorney holder of the defendant filed I. A. No. 90 of 2000 under rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to act, appear and depose on behalf of the defendant. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, one smt. Naima Ismaili w/o. Syed Ali Asgar ismaili stated that she is the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant and in terms of the General Power of Attorney executed in her favour, she has been managing the business of the defendant and managing all the affairs including payment of rents to the plaintiff, and, therefore, she may be permitted to depose on behalf of the defendant. The said application has been opposed by the plaintiff. She filed a counter contending that the General Power of attorney holder of the defendant is not a citizen of India and that under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation act, 1973 (for short fera ) a foreigner cannot carry on business in India unless necessary permission is obtained from the reserve Bank of India, and, therefore, the general Power of Attorney holder has no locus standi to present the case or to conduct the same on behalf of the defendant. The court below by order dated 17-02-2000 dismissed the petition holding that since the defendant as well as her General Power of attorney holder did not file any permission from the Reserve Bank of India to hold any property in India, the suit cannot be defended the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant, who is a foreign national. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has come up with the present civil revision petition.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below ought to have permitted the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant to act, appear and depose on behalf of the defendant. He also vehemently contended that at this stage it is not open to the Court below to go into the issue relating to the alleged permission under the provisions of the FERA; and that the order under revision virtually amounts to granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly he contended that the order under revision is erroneous and cannot be sustained.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice granting permission to the General Power of attorney holder to represent a party to the suit is the discretion of the Court, which has to be exercised on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case; and that, in the present case, the Court below has rightly refused to grant permission since the defendant failed to produce necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of Ind