IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.803 of 2025

11^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between:

G. Uma Shankar and two others.

…Petitioners AND P. Madan Mohan Rao and another.

...Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ganta Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4, aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2025 in I.A.No.449 of 2024 in O.S.No.1241 of 2024 on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Rule 32 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking permission to the GPA holder of the petitioners to represent the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and to do all the acts, deeds, and things on their behalf as their GPA holder, has been dismissed with the following order:

“In the result, this petition is dismissed without costs. The petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh application, which must be accompanied by a duly executed General Power of Attorney from the legal heirs of defendant No.2. The application must also be updated to reflect the correct position of all concerned parties including the other defendants.”

3. The brief background facts leading to the filing of the Civil Revision Petition are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction against the petitioners/defendant No.1, 3 and 4 and the deceased defendant No.2 seeking relief of mandatory injunction to remove the illegal erection and encroachment of common passage of width 4 feet 9 inches unauthorized structure in the suit scheduling property bearing House No. 4-1-22/A1 admeasuring 104 square yards situated at Hanumantekadi, Hyderabad, perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioners and deceased defendant No.2 from raising any construction over the suit schedule property northern portion of Shop No. 4-1-22/A1 and to restrain defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and deceased defendant No.2 from leasing out the Shop No. 4-1-22/A1 in favour of third parties. In said suit, the petitioners along with the deceased defendant No.2 have executed a GPA in favour of one Harbhajan Singh, S/o.Late Sewak Singh, to represent them in the suit. However, subsequently, defendant No.2 died. While so, the remaining defendants i.e., the petitioners herein got a petition filed under Rule 32 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice to permit said Harbhajan Singh to represent all the petitioners and deceased defendant No.2 in the suit.

4. When said petition was filed respondent No.1 herein filed counter affidavit stating that defendant No.2 G. Ramu expired and the petition is filed representing all the petitioners including defendant No.2, as if the GPA is still subsisting. Once defendant No.2, who is one of the signatory to the GPA died, said document has become a defective document. Therefore, the docket order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the trial Court directing the plaintiffs to bring the legal representatives of defendant No.2 on record, but the details are not furnished by the GPA holder. The GPA holder has disobeyed the Court order. In spite of granting two months of time, the legal representatives of defendant No.2 were not brought on record and said fact shows that the GPA is not in contact with his principal. Ever since the GPA was executed in the year 2005, the GPA holder is misusing his power without filing the affidavit under Rule 33 of Civil Rules of Practice. Respondent No.1 pleaded that the GPA document is not maintainable, as the same is an invalid document, as one of the executors died. The GPA has taken signatures of the daughters of the deceased G. Veersham, but did not do the same with legal heirs of the deceased G. Ramu i.e. defendant No. 2. Since the executors are not in contact with the GPA holder