An agent cannot represent a principal after the revocation of the Power of Attorney, and must prove authority to act on behalf of the principal.

ORDER :

(K. LAKSHMAN, J.)

Heard Mr. L. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. J. Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The petitioner herein filed the present revision challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar in I.A. No.1198 of 2024 in I.A. No.1129 of 2024 in O.S. No.43 of 2009.

3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff No.1, while respondent No.4 herein is transposed as plaintiff No.2 from defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S. No.43 of 2009. In the suit, there are 204 defendants. However, in the petition filed in I.A. No.1198 of 2024, defendant Nos.2 to 4 shown defendant Nos.5 to 204 as not necessary parties, whereas the petitioner herein filed the present revision showing defendant Nos.2 to 4 as respondent Nos.1 to 3 and plaintiff No.2 as respondent No.5 only, and neither shown defendant Nos.5 to 204 as parties to the present revision, nor as not necessary parties.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status and rank in the main suit.

5. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of Plaintiff No.2. Initially, she filed the suit against plaintiff No.2 and others seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. Later, her father - defendant No.1 was transposed as plaintiff No.2 in the said suit vide orders dated 21.07.2011 in I.A. No.54 of 2011 and amendment of plaint had also taken place. Thus, the suit filed by them against the defendants is for partition and separate possession of 5/6^th share each out of 15/56^th share in respect of plaint Schedule - A to G Properties. Plaintiff No.1 filed the said suit through her Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. P. Viplav Kumar.

6. During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff No.1 represented by her Power of Attorney Holder, filed an Interlocutory Application under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 read with 151 of CPC , vide I.A. No.1129 of 2024, to grant leave/permission for withdrawal of claim in respect of surplus lands in Survey Nos.438, 439, 442, 443, 549, 550, 581 and 584, admeasuring Acs.27.91 cents, situated at Nagnur Village of Karimnagar Revenue Mandal and District insofar as item Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 18, 23 and 24 of plaint Schedule - ‘A’ properties are concerned as the same are in possession and custody of Government as admitted by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in the affidavit filed in W.P. No.30182 of 2014.

7. While so, defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed an Interlocutory Application under Section - 151 of CPC , vide I.A. No.1198 of 2024, seeking to return the petition filed by plaintiff No.1 under Order - XXIII, Rule - 1 of CPC as not maintainable as it was filed by incompetent person without valid GPA and without following the procedure laid down under Rules - 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice on the following grounds:

i) The suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 through GPA holder without following the procedure.

ii) The GPA document is created as it was not ascertained by plaintiff No.1 by filing her personal affidavit before the trial Court.

iii) Plaintiff No.1 did not seek permission of the trial Court to represent the suit proceedings through GPA.

iv) Therefore, filing the petition under Order - XXIII, Rule -1 of CPC is not maintainable.

v) The alleged GPA Holder, Mr. P.Viplav Kumar did not have any valid GPA.

vi) Mr. Ramesh Sagar, Advocate, who filed Vakalat on behalf of plaintiff No.2 is none other than co-brother of plaintiff No.2.

vii) The alleged GPA Holder, Mr. Viplav Kumar is none other than the own son-in-law of earlier counsel of plaintiff No.2.

viii) In view of family disputes and strained relations, Mr. Ramesh Sagar, Advocate, withdrew his Vakalat, due to which, it raises a cloud on validity of GPA.

8. The Power of Attorney Holder of Plaintiff No.1 filed counter affidavit opposing the said application by contending as follows:

i) The GPA is still subsisting and is in force and