1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A. No. 716 of 2017 in O.S. No. 38 of 1993 (Old O.S. No. 721 of 1983). The petitioners are plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15 in the said suit. They filed the subject I.A. under Rule 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders (hereinafter, the Civil Rules of Practice) seeking permission to be represented by their General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder. By the order under revision, the trial Court held against them and dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, they are before this Court.

2. By order dated 29.03.2018, this Court granted stay of further proceedings in the suit taking note of the apprehension of the petitioners/plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15 that the injunction petition filed by them may be dismissed on the strength of the dismissal of the subject I.A.

3. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel representing Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15 and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel representing Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 5/plaintiff Nos. 5 and 8. Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the siblings of respondent Nos. 2 and 5, being the progeny of deceased Respondent Nos. 1 and 10. Respondent Nos. 11 to 55 in the revision are shown as not necessary parties.

4. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.

5. Plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15 are residents of the United States of America (USA). They executed a GPA on 11.05.2017 authorizing one Salam M. Bawazir to look after their Court cases and their property in Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This GPA was executed before a Notary Public in the State of California, USA. The GPA was thereafter presented before the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District and was validated by him. On the strength of this GPA, the subject I.A. was filed, supported by the affidavit of the GPA holder.

6. Plaintiff No. 8, being respondent No. 5 in the I.A. filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of himself and his siblings contesting the I.A. He contended that the predecessor-in-title of plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15, namely, late Sayeedunnisa Begum, plaintiff No. 3, had relinquished her rights in the family property, vide registered relinquishment deed dated 31.03.1971, when she left for USA and that she was only added as a proforma party. He further contended that plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15, having been brought on record as her legal representatives upon her death, were not entitled to claim any rights in the family property which was the subject matter of the partition suit in O.S. No. 38 of 1993. Lastly, he contended that the GPA executed by plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15 was not in accordance with law.

7. The trial Court thereupon framed the point for consideration as to whether the plaintiff Nos.14 and 15 could be permitted to be represented by their GPA holder as prayed for. The trial Court took note of the fact that the suit schedule property in Survey Nos. 48, 19, 44, 45, 56, 77, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 117/1 and 117/2 of Miyapur Village was the subject matter of the present GPA executed by plaintiff Nos. 14 and 15 while the earlier GPA executed by them was only in relation to the land in Survey No. 45. The trial Court found that the GPA holder as per both the GPAs was one and the same, but there was no explanation as to why two separate GPAs had been executed in his favour. The trial Court noted that the land in Survey No. 45 of Miyapur Village found mention in both the GPAs and opined that as one GPA was already in existence for Survey No. 45, it was the duty of the principals to cancel the said GPA if they wanted to execute a fresh GPA for the land in Survey No. 45 along with the land in the other survey numbers. The trial C