THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.169 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Mohd. Mumtaz Pasha, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.1404 of 2024 in O.S.No.734 of 2019.

3. The main suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff initially represented by his General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) holder E. Prabhakar against the respondents for recovery of possession, recovery of money, perpetual injunction and for mesne profits with respect to property consisting of Flat No.404, on fourth floor in ‘Anjali Enclave’ apartments, on the property bearing municipal Nos.3-6-72/14, 3-6-72/8A and 3-6-72/1 situated at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, admeasuring 816.00 square feet (‘suit schedule property’). The said suit was initially presented by E. Prabhakar with GPA dated 04.09.2012 as the revision petitioner was residing in United States of America (USA). The said E. Prabhakar died on 26.11.2019. Thereafter, no death certificate was filed from 26.11.2019 and his death was not reported to the Court. Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed E.P.No.418 of 2022 for delivery of possession through GPA holder E. Satyanarayana with GPA dated 27.12.2019 and the said GPA has been on record ever since. The petitioner without filing any document cancelling the GPA issued in favour of E. Satyanarayana has filed I.A. under revision seeking permission to appoint one Prithvi Raj Kathuri as his GPA holder to continue to prosecute the suit on the basis of GPA dated 22.08.2022. By referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, Civil Appeal No.9642 of 2010, dated 10.04.2024., the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. under revision leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that there is a difference between permitting the GPA holder to prosecute the case and giving evidence in the suit. Further, it is submitted that the trial Court has misunderstood the proposition of law relating to giving evidence in a case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., 2005 (2) SCC 217, wherein it is held that GPA holder can depose and verify with respect to transaction about which he has personal knowledge. The petition

is filed only for the purpose of prosecuting the case on the basis of GPA dated 22.08.2022, but not for the purpose of giving evidence. Further, it is stated that the GPA holder is having personal knowledge about the dispute and it is not possible for the revision petitioner to prosecute the case on his own as he is residing abroad. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner through his father as GPA and when his father died, the said GPA stood revoked automatically and a fresh GPA was executed by him in favour of E. Satyanarayana, who is his paternal uncle. Due to ill-health of said E. Satyanarayana, the revision petitioner revoked the said GPA as well and executed GPA dated 22.08.2022 in favour of his brother-in-law by name Prithvi Raj Kathuri. The revision petitioner visited India and filed his affidavit in chief, however, as the respondents sought to set aside ex parte order and the same was allowed, the matter is posted for trial. Therefore, the I.A. under revision is filed seeking permission for new GPA holder to prosecute the case. Further, the GPA has already filed evidence affidavit along with I.A. under revision and the evidentiary value of said deposition can be evaluated at the time of passing of judgment as any person can be examined as witness.

5. Respondent No.4 herein filed his counter questioning the locus standi of the GPA