B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.06.2014 passed in I.A. No.1110 of 2011 in O.S. No.11 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. The suit O.S. No.11 of 2007 is filed by two plaintiffs against as many as 13 defendants for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property. As can be seen from the draft issues at page No.36 of material papers in settling six issues after hearing on 14.12.2007, defendant No.1 appearing through Sri K. Vasudevarao, advocate, defendants 2 and 3 appearing through Sri K. Manoharachari, and there is nothing to say about other defendants either remained exparte or contesting and there is no any adopted memo of the written statement of anybody and there is nothing reflected as to who filed written statement among 13 defendants whether together or separate.

4. Coming to the written statement said to have been filed defendant No.2, which is enclosed to the material papers at page Nos.33 to 35 shows the copy of written statement received by plaintiff on 23.11.2007 and there is no signature of 2nd defendant in page No.1 or 2 or above and below the declaration as required by law and there is only one signature or initial appears to that of the advocate for defendant and it is not even mentioned as advocate for defendant No.2 much less with full name or full signature, if at all, it is of the 2nd defendant it might be of Sri K. Manoharachari as reflected from the draft issues of material papers at page No.36. It clearly shows that the written statement is not filed as contemplated by law and one more submission by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, who went unsuccessful in filing in I.A. No.1110 of 2011 vide order dated 30.06.2014 is that the so-called advocate did not even file any vakalat to put any initial or signature as advocate for 2nd defendant and to say that according to the learned counsel for revision petitioners, he obtained certified copy of the two vakalats singed by K. Manoharachari, one for defendant No.4 and the other for defendants 3, 5, 6 to 9 by obtaining signatures of defendants 3, 5, 6 to 8 and thumb impression of defendant No.9 and not for defendant No.2 at all.

5. Once such is the case, there is no written statement of 2nd defendant in the eye of law. A perusal of the impugned order of the lower Court in dismissing the application did not advert to the facts, as to whether it goes to the root of the matter or only procedural curable lapse. In fact, there is no signature of the party and it is not the signature of the advocate of the party by filing vakalat. If there is vakalat by advocate for the party and there is no signature in the written statement obtained of the party and once it is duly signed by advocate having vakalat, it can be said curable. Here the facts are different as there is no signature of the party and no signature of the advocate in the eye of law for there is no vakalat of the advocate.

6. Having regard to the above, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 passed in I.A. No.1110 of 2011 in O.S. No.11 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle and the lower Court is directed to decide the matter afresh only from material on record and after hearing both sides with reference to the provisions and procedure contemplated by law.

7. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.