Telangana High Court
Sri. Danda Amarender vs M/S. Lakshmi Garden on 14 November, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3392 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for 1st respondent, and perused the record.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 25-07-2024 passed in I.A.No.511 of 2023 in O.S.No.17 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda, whereby the said Interlocutory Application is dismissed.
3. The Revision petitioner herein is plaintiff in the aforementioned suit filed for dissolution of the 1st respondent / defendant partnership firm.
4. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner herein has filed the underlying Interlocutory Application to receive the General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed by him and permit the Power of Attorney Holder to represent the Revision petitioner in the aforementioned suit.
2
5. Upon the petitioner executing the General Power of Attorney authorizing V.Narsi Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy to represent the petitioner as his Power of Attorney Holder, the GPA Holder has filed two Interlocutory Applications under Rule 32 and 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short 'the Rules') to receive the GPA and permit him to prosecute the suit.
6. On the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications being filed, the 1st respondent herein had filed its counter to the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications.
7. The 1st respondent herein opposed the underlying Interlocutory Application being I.A.No.511 of 2023 by filing counter. The 1st respondent inter alia contended that no reasons have been assigned in the petition as to why the petitioner/plaintiff is unable to attend the Court; and that the petitioner/plaintiff did not file his affidavit in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules, and sought for dismissal of the Interlocutory Application.
8. The trial Court, on consideration of the aforementioned Interlocutory Applications, while allowing the Interlocutory 3 Application filed under Rule 32 of the Rules, however, dismissed I.A.No.511 of 2023 filed under Rule 33 of the Rules whereby the GPA Holder had sought permission to give evidence, conduct and participate in the proceeding of the suit.
9. The trial Court, having regard to Rule 33 of the Rules, had observed that Rule 33 of the Rules deals with instances where the agent signs and verifies the proceedings on behalf of his principal; and that it requires an affidavit of the principal appointing the said agent duly verifying the signature of the agent besides stating the reasons for principal's inability to sign or verify the proceeding. The trial Court by observing as above, had held that since the principal did not file such an affidavit, the application filed under Rule 33 of the Rules cannot be allowed, and accordingly dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application.
10. The trial Court also took note of the fact that in the facts of the present case, since the agent seeks to adduce evidence on behalf of the principal i.e. petitioner/plaintiff, the requirement as mandated under Rule 33 of the Rules must be complied with and 4 the agent along with the underlying Interlocutory Application, except fling the certified copy of the Power of Attorney, did not file the affidavit of the principal/plaintiff with all the reasons and particulars as stipulated under Rule 33 of the Rules and as such, permission cannot be accorded to the agent either to sign the pleadings or adduce evidence much less to conduct the suit on behalf of the principal/plaintiff.
11. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
12. On behalf of Revision petitioner, though it was sought to be contended that since Rule 33 of the Rules deals with signing or verification by agent, the affidavit that is required to be filed in terms of said Rule is that of the agent and not of the principal.
13. It is also contended that Rule 32 of the Rules deals with the party appearing by agent and thus, the procedure laid down thereunder is required to be complied by the party appointing the agent and that the same is at variance with the procedure prescribed to be followed by agent so appointed by the principal. 5
14. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the Revision petitioner that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is without proper appreciation of the scope and applicability of Rule 33 of the Rules and thus, the same warrants interference by this Court in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction.
15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 1st respondent would contend that Rule 33 of the Rules, though deals with signing and verification by the agent stipulates that if any proceeding which is required to be signed or verified by a party, is required is signed or verified by his agent, the written authority of the party who is required to sign otherwise is to be filed into Court together with an affidavit of the said person stating therein the reasons of his inability to sign or verify the proceeding by himself, for which the agent is being authorized.
16. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it is also contended that inasmuch as the underlying Interlocutory Application as filed is not accompanied by any affidavit of the principal/plaintiff explaining the reasons of his inability to sign/verify the proceeding himself and also verifying the signatures of the 6 person signing on his behalf, the order of the trial Court being in consonance with the Rules does not call for any interference, and seeks for dismissals of the Revision Petition.
17. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
18. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that Rule 32 is applicable in relation to the party appearing by agent i.e. principal and Rule 33 deals with signing or verification to be undertaken by the agent, firstly, it is to be noted that Rule 32 of the Rules deals with appearance of a party before the Court through agent, while Rule 33 of the Rules deals with signing or verification. Thus, both the Rules are independent of one another.
19. Secondly, the heading of Rule 33 of the Rules reads as "Signing of verification by Agent". A plain reading of the said Rule shows that same stipulates that a party who is otherwise required to sign or verify any proceeding under any provision of law or Rules thereunder, instead of being signed or verified by himself, is signed or is verified by any person on his behalf, a written authority signed by such party is required to be filed into 7 Court along with an affidavit verifying the signature of the said party and also stating the reasons for his inability to sign or verify the proceeding. The use of the word "his inability" to sign or verify the proceeding used in Rule 33 of the Rules would clearly show that the reference is to the inability of the party who is otherwise required to sign the proceeding himself and for the said purpose the other person being authorized to sign on his behalf, who would be considered as his agent.
20. In the facts of the case, though the petitioner/plaintiff had appointed an agent, whereby the petitioner/plaintiff is to be considered as principal while the Power of Attorney holder as agent, the affidavit of the petitioner/plaintiff as stipulated under Rule 33 of the Rules indicating the reason for his inability to sign the proceeding by himself and verifying the signature of the agent has not been filed. On the other hand, only an affidavit of the agent is filed along with the Interlocutory Application, which course of action adopted cannot be considered as being in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules.
8
21. A Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Natubhai Chotabhai Patel Vs. Patnam Shakuntala and another 1 in similar circumstance, had held as under:
"15. ..... But if an agent is authorized to undertake the signing of pleadings, adducing of evidence and advancing of arguments, the agent shall be permitted in writing and the party has to file an affidavit that he has duly authorized the agent to represent him instead of an Advocate. In case of a party executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of another person, the General Power of Attorney holder also cannot be permitted to represent the party in the suit for all purposes namely to sign the pleadings, to adduce evidence and to advance arguments unless an affidavit is filed by the party affirming that he has authorized his General Power of Attorney holder to represent his case for the above purposes. .."
22. Further, in Janab Syed Kazim Sahab Vs. Janab Sayeed Bakaran Sahab (died) by L.R. and another 2 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while considering Rule 33 of the Rules, had held as under :
"24. .... In deed there is no conflict between the C.P.C. and Rule 33 CRP. Rule 33 is an additional provision and not repugnant to any provision in the C.P.C. and, therefore, if a rule like 33 were 1 2012(4) ALD 553 (DB) 2 1989 SCC online AP 502 9 to fall for consideration before the Supreme Court, what would have been the judgment? May be, it might have held on the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant that Rule 33 must be given effect to in preference to C.P.C. ...."
In the said case, it was further held as under:
"25. ..... But however in order to hold the said plaint to be valid, it must be accompanied by an affidavit of the executant of the GPA in terms of Rule 33. ..."
23. Thus, having regard to the stipulation of Rule 33 of the Rules and also the legal position as settled above, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the underlying Interlocutory Application are valid and thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
24. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.
25. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 14.11 .2024 Vsv