ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2023 in E.A. No.14 of 2022 in E.P. No.727 of 2022 (previously numbered as E.P. No.18 of 2020) passed by the II Addition Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. Heard Sri. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri. Narender Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dantu Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.25, Sri. Umesh Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.19 and perused the record.

3. The respondent No.19 herein had filed E.P. No.727 of 2022 for payment of enhanced compensation granted in O.P. No.43 of 1997. Thereafter, the respondent No.19 herein filed the underlying E.A. No.14 of 2022 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, r/w. Rule 232 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

4. The Court below allowed the said application with the following direction :

“…address a letter to the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, R.R. District, at L.B. Nagar to issue a cheque in favour of this petitoner for a sum of Rs.34,38,234/- and to credit the same to his account no. 621965237563, State Bank of India, Keesara Branch, Medchal Malkajgirik, towards part payment of decree amount or else to transfer the E.P. amounts to the account of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, M.M. District for futher action.”

5. The present revision is preferred aggrieved by the said order.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contends that the respondent No.19 is his father; and that he had executed a registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney vide Doc.No.17932 of 2005 dated 17.11.2005 in his favour. It is further contended that in furtherance of the said irrevocable General Power of Attorney, the petitioner herein had represented the respondent No.19 in L.A.O.P. No.43 of 1997 and had also obtained the Occupancy Rights Certificate under the Inam Abolition Act, 1955.

7. It is further contended that since, the said Irrevocable General Power of Attorney was unilaterally cancelled by the respondent No.19 herein, the petitioner herein filed O.S. No.230 of 2022 before the Family Court-cum-Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Malkajgiri seeking cancellation of the same; and that the same is pending adjudication. Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that respondent No.19 cannot now file the underlying E.A. No.14 of 2022 in his own capacity.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.19 contends that the said Irrevocable General Power of Attorney was cancelled as the petitioner herein had acted adverse to the respondent No.19’s interests. He further contends that the petitioner herein neither had any share nor claim to the compensation payable to him.

9. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

10. The sole issue falling for consideration in the present revision is whether the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner is an irrevocable power of attorney. Consequently, whether a Principal can act on his own behalf after executing a power of attorney.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and Ors. Vs. M. Chinniyan and Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 296, held that an agent under a power of attorney always acts in the name of his principle and that any document executed by the agent is as if the principal has executed himself. The relevant paragraphs are as under :

“42. The law relating to power of attorney is governed by the provisions of the Power of Attorney Act, 1982. It is well settled therein that an agent acting under a power of attorney always acts, as a general rule, in the name of his principal. Any document executed or thing done by an agent on the strength of power of attorney is as effective as if executed or done in the name of principal, i.e., by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, always acts on behalf of the principal and exercises only those powers, which are given to him in the power of attorney by the principal. Any act or thing done by th