The respondent in this appeal filed an Arbitration Original Petition (O.P.) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the 1996 Act’) for a direction to the appellant herein to furnish security for US $ 797951.42 equivalent to Rs.3,63,06,789-81 Ps., (at the rate of Rs.45-50 ps., per US $). Along therewith it filed an application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act read with Order XXXVIII Rule 5 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) for a direction to the appellant herein to furnish security for the aforesaid amount within three days and for a simultaneous order of conditional attachment of the petition schedule properties, pending disposal of the O.P. As the concerned Court, of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was in vacation, the respondent moved this Court under Section 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (for short ‘the 1972 Act’) read with Section 151 CPC by way of Receive and Transmit applications to receive the O.P. and the interlocutory application filed therewith and transmit the same to the concerned Court. These were numbered as R & T. Petition No. 8 of 2011 and R & T. C.M.P.No. 9 of 2011 respectively.

This Court on 12-01-2011 passed an order in R & T.C.M.P.No. 9 of 2011: notice to the respondent to furnish security for the suit amount within a period of six weeks and in default, there shall be conditional attachment of the petition schedule property. Since under Section 33 of the 1972 Act, the order of this Court is deemed to be the order of concerned Court viz., of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which has the jurisdiction over the O.P. and the interlocutory application therein, on re-opening after vacation, the respondent therein filed the present appeal inter alia contending that this Court ought to have rejected both the R & T Petition No. 8 of 2011 and R & T.C.M.P.No. 9 of 2011 instituted by the respondent represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder – Sri K.H. Monappa, for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 32 of The Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (for short ‘the CRP’).

Rule 32 of the CRP reads:

“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.”

In C.M.A.C.M.P.No. 264 of 2011 in this appeal, the appellant sought suspension of the order of this Court dated 12-01-2011 in R & T.C.M.P.No. 9 of 2011, which on transmission to the Court of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was re-numbered as I.A.No. 392 of 2011 in Arbitration O.P.No. 358 of 2011. In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit accompanying C.M.A.C.M.P.No. 264 of 2011, the appellant specifically pleaded that the respondent herein had neither filed the Special Power of Attorney authorizing Sri Monappa to represent the respondent nor sought the permission of the Court as enjoined by Rule 32 of CRP and R & T Petition No. 8 of 2011 and R & T.C.M.P.No. 9 of 2011 ought not therefore to have been en