Heard Sri Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Purnachandra Rao, the learned counsel representing the fourth respondent.

2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 22-12-2005 and inasmuch as respondent No.4 was represented by counsel and respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 were un-served, the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice and file proof of service. Proof of service is filed.

3. Sri Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the application was tiled under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Order VII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to permit the Foreman and Director of the plaintiff company to act as representative of the said company to prosecute the suit. The learned counsel would submit that even if it is an irregularity in presentation of the plaint, the same is a curable irregularity and hence in the light of the reasons explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the learned judge instead of allowing application had erroneously dismissed the said application.

4. Per contra Sri Purnachandra Rao, the learned counsel represent