IMPORTANT POINT
A party must provide proper authorization to represent a company in legal proceedings, and failure to do so can result in dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.

Heard Ms. Dr.Menaka Guruswamy, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel, for petitioner in these applications, who is the respondent No.2 in the Second Appeal.

2. Mr. K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in these applications, who is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

3. Since the parties in these applications and the issues fell for consideration before this Court are similar, they are being heard together.

4. I.A. No.1 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner, who is respondent No.2 in the Second appeal, seeking to reject the Second Appeal for not filing authorisation/Power of Attorney on behalf of the appellant and on account of non-compliance of Rules 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice.

5. I.A. No.2 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner, who is respondent No.2 in the Second Appeal, seeking to recall the order dated 05.01.2024 directing admission of the subject Second Appeal on the ground of fraudulent suppression of the Suit No.643 of 2014 dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Bombay High Court by the 1st respondent/appellant and consequently be pleased to dismiss S.A. No.533 of 2023.

6. I.A. No.3 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner, who is respondent No.2 in the Second Appeal, seeking to pass an order making and referring a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional Magistrate for prosecution of the 1st respondent/appellant for the offence committed under Section 193 and Section 194 IPC (by having pressed into service the forged and fabricated photocopy of the authorisation letter dated 03.05.2019 in the subject appeal).

7. For better appreciation of the case on hand, brief facts of the case are noted hereunder:

8. Initially, O.S. No.843 of 2014 was filed by one Sahebzadi Hameedunnisa Begum, W/o. late Ghouse Mohiuddin Khan, before the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking for cancellation of Registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.1966 bearing Document No.1564 of 1966 and the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.04.2017 dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No.196 of 2017 before the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 07.12.2023 allowed the said appeal holding that the plaintiff was able to establish her exclusive possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Assailing the same, the appellant, M/s. Cyrus Investments Limited, in the Second Appeal, who is the defendant/respondent in the suit and in the appeal suit, respectively, preferred the present Second Appeal.

9. According to the appellant in the Second Appeal, brief facts of the case are that in the suit, the parties i.e. HEH The Nizam, in whose favour the sale deed dated 21.05.1966 was executed, was not made party. The present appellant/D1 who was subsequent purchaser from HEH The Nizam was made party, but Defendant No.1 did not file written statement in the suit and hence it was set ex parte. The subsequent purchasers of the lands from the defendant No.1, who are affected parties, were also not made parties. However, the trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 21.04.2017 dismissed the suit in O.S. No.843 of 2016 on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, a suit for cancellation of sale deed has to be filed within three years and when the sale deed dated 21.05.1966 bearing document No.1544 of 1966 is filed in the month of March, 2016 (after 50 years) is hopelessly barred by limitation. Further, the trial Court observed that the sale deed bearing document No.1544 of 1966 was recognised by the High Court as per the orders passed in Application No.229 of 1966 in C.S. No.14 of 1958 dated 10.10.1969 and as such the sale deed cannot be cancelled without setting aside