COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.2452 of 2023 is filed against the Order dated

20.07.2023 in I.A.No.141 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2011, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

2. C.R.P.No.2453 of 2023 is filed against the Order dated 11.07.2023 in I.A.No.139 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2011, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

3. C.R.P.No.2454 of 2023 is filed against the Order dated 20.07.2023 in I.A.No.142 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2011, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

4. C.R.P.No.2457 of 2023 is filed against the Order dated 20.07.2023 in I.A.No.140 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2011, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

5. Petitioners herein have filed I.A.Nos.141, 139, 142 & 140 of 2023, under rule 32(2) of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to permit the G.P.A holder i.e., petitioner No.1/defendant No.10 to represent P.Malini/defendant No.8, P.Umadevi/defendant No.6, K.Ashwini/defendant No.9 and T.Shilpa/defendant No.5 respectively, on their behalf. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides, observed that there are lot of contradictions in the recitals of alleged sale deed and G.P.A, which cannot be received and the petitioner No.1 has no manner of right to represent the case on their behalf in respect of the suit schedule property. They have to face the cross-examination to claim right over the suit land. When they are party to the suit, they have to represent the case on their own. As per rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice, an agent shall be permitted to represent on behalf of the principal, when they are carrying a trade or business and accordingly permission for executing General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.1 was dismissed. Against the said Orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred.

6. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 had filed O.S.No.86 of 2011, for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of the suit schedule property and for declaration that the registered agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A dated 29.08.2009 and registered sale deeds bearing documents No.266, 267, 268, 269 and 270 of 2011 dated 16.03.2011 as null and void and not binding on him. On the demise of defendant No.7, defendants No.10 to 14 were brought on record as her legal heirs, who are petitioners No.1, 8 to 14 in the present revision petitions. The respondents No.2 to 4 are defendants No.1 to 3 in the suit and they are the family members of respondent No.1/plaintiff. The respondent No.2/defendant No.1 filed the written statement and respondents No.3 & 4 were set exparte in the suit. After closure of the respondent No.1/plaintiff’s evidence, the suit was posted for defendants evidence and respondent No.2/defendant No.1 deposed as D.W.1 and after closure of the respondent No.2 evidence, the suit is coming up for evidence of other petitioners/defendants.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the General Power of Attorney is none other than the father of petitioners No.3 & 7, husband of petitioner No.4 and father- in-law of petitioner No.6, and thus requested the Court to set aside the Orders of the trial Court. The trial Court totally relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, dismissed all the applications.

8. Admittedly, O.S.No.86 of 2011 is filed for partition and separate possession. As the petitioner No.1 herein is the father of petitioners No.3 & 7, husband of the petitioner No.4 and father-in-law of the petitioner No.6, he intended to represent them through General Power of Attorney (G.P.A) and G.P.A was also executed by each of them separately by authorizing him to represent on their behalf on 13.01.2023. Now-a-days, even in the family Court matters, wife and husband are representing through G.P.A holder, as they are residing in another country or else they are busy with their work schedule. The trial Court erred in dismissing the application in a Civil Suit. Therefore, this Court finds that the Orders of