ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.119 of 2022 in O.S.No.59 of

2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet.

2. O.S.No.59 of 2010 is filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff against petitioner/defendant for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, respondents herein filed I.A.No.119 of 2022 to permit them to amend the plaint. The trial Court allowed the application on 22.08.2022. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that admittedly plaintiff filed the suit through their GPA holders and later revoked the GPA by two registered revocation deeds and marked as Exs.A6 and A7, as such the power of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 prosecute the suit was revoked by P.W.1 himself. Though the suit was filed by plaintiff No.1, he has not signed the plaint, as such the respondents herein filed I.A.No.119 of 2022 to permit them to amend the plaint. As per Rule 17 Order VI of C.P.C, no application for amendment is to be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, parties could not raise the matter before commencement of trial. Though the GPA was revoked in the year 2010, respondent No.1 herein is not diligent in prosecuting the case by signing the plaint by amending the plaint. An application was filed allowing him to sign the plaint in the year 2022, after commencement of trial, as such the said IA is liable to be dismissed in limine. In this case, issues were framed. Plaintiff is not due diligent in pursuing the litigation. He has not taken any steps but he filed chief affidavit on 13.07.2017 and documents were marked on 16.08.2017 and an objection was raised on behalf of defendant stating that plaintiff has not put his signature on plaint.

5. In the cross-examination dated 28.01.2018, respondent No.1 herein admitted the execution of registered revocation deeds revoking the GPAs marked as Exs.A6 and A7. On 01.12.2020, respondent No.1 herein filed vakalat of new advocate without taking steps to implead himself as plaintiff.

On 03.08.2021, petitioner herein filed a memo stating that PW1 is not competent to cross-examine DW1. Petitioner/Defendant has not raised any objections with regard to non-compliance of Rule XXIII of Civil Rules of Practice in the judgment passed in Janab Syed Kazim Sahab Vs. Janab Syed Bkaram Sahib. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

6. Perusal of the record shows that suit is filed for injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the suit property. At the time of filing the suit, it was mentioned that plaintiff is represented by GPA holder and he himself was shown as plaintiff in the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings, he revoked the GPA and intended to proceed with the suit. An objection was raised by petitioner/defendant stating that plaint was not signed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff itself. Respondent No.1/P.W.1 had executed and got registered the sale-cum-GPA documents bearing Nos.2904/2010 an 2919/2010 and the executant of the documents agreed to sell the document schedule property for consideration to the purchasers and appointed plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as his GPA holder. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 claiming themselves the GPA holders of plaintiff No.1 filed the suit. However, the application is filed 11 years after filing of the suit and the reasons for delay is not explained. Though suit is filed in the year 2010, when the matter came up for evidence of P.W.1 defendant raised an objection. Even when plaintiff filed the suit showing GPA holders no objection was raised by defendant but raised an objection when plaintiff intended to sign on the plaint.

7. No doubt, the petitioner/defendant has not assigned any reason as to why he could not prosecute the applicatio