THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.894 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri. M.Laxmi Narasimham, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. Narender Jalli, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed in I.A. No.700 of 2022 in I.A. No.793 of 2021 in O.S. No.570 of 2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the petition is wrongly filed under Order VII Rule 8(A) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) [instead of Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the CPC] for receiving the documents to be considered in a petition seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

4. The documents were sought to be received by filing a memo by the learned counsel representing respondents and when objection was raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners for receiving the documents without filing a petition under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the CPC, the learned counsel for the respondents filed petition on behalf of the party to receive the documents without stating the reasons for receiving the documents or the delay thereof.

5. The point for consideration is whether the learned counsel for the respondents can step into the shoes of his party and file an affidavit in support of the petition. In this aspect, learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vinoy kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh¹, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Baljeet Singh v. Pratap Singh², the judgement of the then Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s.Premier Chemical Industries and another v. Member Convener and Joint Director and others3,the judgment of this Court in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad and others⁴ and the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Kotta kota Lakkappa and five others v. B.Lakkapagari Chikkaiah and six others5

6. The only point reiterated in the aforementioned judgments is that the learned counsel, who obtained vakalath on behalf of his

1 AIR 2001 SC 1739

2 AIR 2017 Allahabad 165

AIR 2006 Andhra Pradesh 242

2009(3) ALT 236

CRP No.4776 of 2016

party, can represent the party but cannot file affidavits or other pleadings on his behalf.

7. In the present case, learned counsel for the respondents made an attempt to support the affidavit which is filed on his behalf. In light of the aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the considered view that learned counsel can merely represent the parties, but cannot step into the shoes of the parties while prosecuting the case of his parties. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 is liable to be set aside. However, the respondents are permitted to file an application under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the CPC before the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 in I.A. No.700 of 2022 in I.A. No. 793 of 2023 in O.S. No. 570 of 2021 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 13.08.2025 gms