AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri. V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and sri M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directedagainst the order dated 24-7-2000, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally, in e-P. No. 62 of 1993 in O. S. No. 1337 of 1988.

( 3 ) ON 30-10-1992, a decree was passed bythe I Additional District Munsif at vijayawada in O. S. No. 1337 of 1988. Pursuant thereto, a sale notice was issued to the respondent-judgment-debtor on 19-6-1997. The respondent filed counter contending that he paid the E. P. amount on 1-1-1993 and the alleged General Power of attorney, which was not filed into Court, is not valid, and having regard to the provisions of Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of practice, the E. P. is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner-decreeholder during the course of enquiry filed certified copies of the power of attorney in O. S. No. 1335 of 1988 and the judgment in O. S. No. 1337 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, vijayawada. The respondent opposed receiving of the said documents on the ground that no permission was granted under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice by the original Court permitting sri T. Mohan Rao to act as General Power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE Court below after discussing theobjections, dismissed the E. P. holding as not maintainable under law. Aggrieved by the said order, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

( 5 ) THE matter, earlier was heard bysri P. S. Narayana, J. and it was brought to his notice that as against an order dated 24-7-2000, passed in E. P. No. 69 of 1995 in o. S. No. 1333 of 1988, by the learned Junior civil Judge, Sathupally, between the same parties, involving the same question, a learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 19-9-2001, dismissed C. R. P. No. 3519 of 2000.

( 6 ) RULE 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice,which deals with the aspect of party appearing by agent reads: party appearing by Agent: (1) When a parry appears by an agent, other than an Advocate, the agent shall, before making 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 property authenticated copy thereof together with an affidavit that the said authority is 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 ) ORDER III of the Code of Civilprocedure, 1908 (for short the Code ) deals with recognized agent and pleaders. There is no specific provision dealing with this aspect under Order XXI of the Code. In the instant case, the decree reads: m/s. Kamal Silk Mills, rep. by its power of attorney holder agent by name T. Mohan Rao s/o. Ramanadhan, r/o. Vijayawada.

( 8 ) THE objection now raised by therespondent is that though the decree specifically indicates that the plaintiff is represented by power of attorney holder, yet at the stage of execution the procedure contemplated under Rule 32 of the Civil rules of Practice has to be followed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the decree at best is a curable irregularity and dismissing the EP on that ground is wholly unsustainable, placed reliance upon several decisions k. A. Mangatayaramma v. Indian Bank, madras1, Janab Syed Kazim Sahab v. Janab sayeed Ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document