COMMON ORDER:

The present application has been filed to condone the delay of 634 days in filing the second appeal.

2. Heard Sri N. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents/respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 03.03.2023, passed by the Sr. Civil Judge at Shadnagar, in A.S. No.03 of 2022, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 25.11.2021, passed by the Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the respondents/respondents have filed a suit in O.S. No.126 of 2021 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, seeking cancellation of the registered General Power of Attorney bearing document No.3342 of 2015, dated 24.04.2015. The respondents/respondents had executed the said General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner/appellant in respect of the suit schedule property, as they were not in a position to look after their properties and wanted the petitioner/appellant to sell the suit schedule properties on their behalf. The said General Power of Attorney is “irrevocable.” However, no personal notice was ever served upon the petitioner/appellant. Though notice was allegedly published in the newspaper Nava Telangana, the said newspaper has no circulation in the petitioner/appellant’s locality. Consequently, the petitioner/appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings. Nevertheless, the trial Court proceeded with the matter and dismissed the said suit on the merits on 25.11.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant further submits that, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in O.S. No.126 of 2021, the respondents/respondents preferred A.S. No.3 of 2022 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar. The learned appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 03.03.2023, allowed the appeal ex parte. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/appellant filed the present S.A. No.102 of 2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant further submits that the petitioner/appellant came to know of the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.3 of 2022 only recently, during the first week of February 2025, when he was negotiating the sale of the lands. The negotiations had almost been finalized when the respondents came and informed the petitioner/appellant about the impugned judgment and decree. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant collected all the relevant documents and contacted his counsel. By that time, a delay of 634 days had already occurred in filing the present second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/respondents vehemently opposed the condoning the delay by citing various judgments.

8. After hearing the matter at length on both sides, this Court, while considering the delay of 634 days, is of the opinion that it is appropriate to dispose of the second appeal at the admission stage itself.

9. While passing the judgment in O.S. No.126 of 2021, the trial court observed as follows:

“On careful perusal of the contents in plaint and the submissions of plaintiff’s counsel, it is deemed that the suit is within limitation but the contents in Ex.A1 CC of GPA dt. 24.04.2015, it is found at point No.10 that the plaintiffs had declared that the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of defendant is “irrevocable.” The said clause in Ex.A1 precludes plaintiff from revoking the said document. The Chapter X of Indian Contracts Act deals with “Agency.” Section 185 states that no consideration is necessary to create an agency. But, Ex.A1 is shown to have been executed in favour of defendant showing the cost of value of suit schedule property as Rs.14,79,000/- and stamp duty was paid according to the market value for registration. Further, Section 201 to 210 deals with revocation of authority. Section 201 states