The authority of a GPA holder must comprehensively cover all properties involved in a suit, and insufficient court fee constitutes a curable defect.

ORDER : 

K. Sujana, J.

Challenging the order dated 23.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.135 of 2023 in O.S.No.7 of 2023 by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted O.S.No.7 of 2023, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In response, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, filed I.A.No.135 of 2023 to reject the plaint. The primary contention of the petitioner before the trial Court was that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite authority to file the suit, specifically with regard to item Nos.2 to 4 of the scheduled properties. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the plaintiffs had never been in possession of the scheduled properties. The petitioner also pointed out that the plaintiffs have not paid the required ad- valorem court fee, which is a mandatory pre-requisite for filing a suit. The respondents countered these averments before the trial Court by asserting that the GPA holder had the necessary authority to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. Additionally, the respondents argued that the question of joint possession was inextricably linked with complex factual and legal issues, rendering the petition premature. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the trial court vide order dated 23.08.2023 dismissed the petition holding that the issues raised by the petitioner required a full-length trial to determine, and therefore, it would not be justified in exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) of the CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V. Umaptahi Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the trial Judge erred in dismissing the application of the Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. Learned counsel raised two grounds, first, that the Suit was not maintainable as it was filed through a GPA Holder without authority; and second, that the plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and therefore, required to pay ad-valorem Court fee. He further submitted that the authority of the GPA Holder was limited to Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties, and that the Suit in respect of the other properties was without authority and the contention of the Plaintiffs that consideration of the document as a whole was against the contents of the document.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties, as evidenced by the registered Will Deed executed by Late Smt. Lakshmi Narsu Bai and that this document clearly establish that the properties were the exclusive property of Smt. Lakshmi Narsu Bai, and that she had bequeathed the properties to the petitioner through the registered Will Deed. He further contended that the plaintiffs had admitted in their plaint that they were not in possession of the suit schedule properties and that in the absence of joint possession, the plaintiffs were required to pay ad-valorem court fee, which they had failed to do. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application of the petitioner be allowed.

6. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Radakishen v. Wall Mohamme, wherein in the relevant paragraphs it is held as under:

“3. With regard to the second contention it is urged that O. 7 R. 11 is not exhaustive in itself, and under the provisions of the said Act the court has the power to reject the plaint. It is further urged that if the order does not amount to a rejection of the plaint unde