Allowed

Chikkala Surya Venkateswara Rao v. Vilavala Tulasirao

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2019CRP/1986/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of an interim application seeking permission for a General Power of Attorney holder to represent the plaintiff. The trial court incorrectly dismissed the plea due to a typographical error mentioning a non-suit party, and the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and imposed cost without reason.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside the GA's I.A was set aside and the GA's I.A was allowed without costs.

Chikkala Surya Venkateswara Rao Vs Vilavala… — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1986 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :-

¶3

Challenge in the Civil Revision Petition is the order dated 28.02.2019 in I.A.No.319 of 2018 in O.S.No.11 of 2016 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajole, dismissing the petition filed by G.P.A holder of plaintiff under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to represent him as G.P.A to give evidence as P.W.1 on behalf of plaintiff and sign on the required documents to prosecute the suit.

¶4

2. O.S.No.11 of 2016 is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration and recovery of arrears of rent against the respondents/defendants. While so, the I.ANo.319 of 2018 came to be filed by the G.P.A holder of the plaintiff who is the father of the plaintiff, seeking permission to give evidence as P.W.1 and to sign on the necessary documents stating that the plaintiff is in abroad on account of his job and therefore he cannot personally present to prosecute the suit. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the sole ground that in the petition filed in support of the affidavit to I.A.No.319 of 2018, the petitioner mentioned “petitioner/bank pray…..”. The trial Court observed that in this case the plaintiff is not a bank as per the cause title in the plaint and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for permission to represent the bank and give evidence as P.W.1 and sign on the documents and therefore the prayer portion is a defective one.

¶5

2 UDPR, J C.R.P.No.1986 of 2019 Dt:13.09.2019

¶6

While dismissing the petition, the trial Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs.250/- to other side and Rs.250/- to MLSC, Rajole under Section 35-A of CPC, aggrieved, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶7

3. Notice served on respondents, but there is no representation.

¶8

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. He would submit that it is a sheer typographical mistake that in the petition in I.A.No.319 of 2018 the word ‘bank’ has been added after the word petitioner and admittedly no bank is plaintiff in the suit and the trial Court ought to have considered this fact and allowed the petition. Instead, apart from dismissing the suit, the trial Court imposed exemplary costs also against the petitioner for a sheer mistake on the part of the petitioner. He thus, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶9

5. A perusal of copy of the plaint in O.S.No.11 of 2016 filed along with the material papers in C.R.P would show that admittedly one C. Surya Venkateswara Rao alone is the plaintiff and no bank is a party in the suit. Therefore, in the normal circumstances while filing the petition by the G.P.A, there was no occasion for showing the bank as a party. Therefore, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that it was by sheer mistake that the word ‘bank’ is mentioned after the word petitioner in the prayer portion. It is pertinent to note that while such mentioning either wittingly or unwittingly, no prejudice is caused either to the respondents/defendants or to the Court. The trial Court ought to have

¶10

3 UDPR, J C.R.P.No.1986 of 2019 Dt:13.09.2019

¶11

considered this aspect sympathetically and allowed the petition. Instead, the trial Court while dismissing the petition imposed exemplary costs without there being any justifiable reason, which is highly deprecatory.

¶12

6. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and consequently I.A.No.319 of 2018 is allowed. The trial Court is directed to permit the G.P.A holder of the plaintiff to appear on behalf of the plaintiff and prosecute the suit. No costs.

¶13

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

_ ________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 13.09.2019 MS

¶15

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶16

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1986 OF 2019

¶17

Date. 13.09.2019

¶18

Chikkala Surya Venkateswara Rao v. Vilavala Tulasirao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikkala Surya Venkateswara Rao v. Vilavala Tulasirao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanduri at Sidhantham Vijaya Vs State of Ap

Nalluri Ravinder Babu at Ravinder Vs State of Ap

Kalavakuru Penchalamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Popular Shoe Company Vs Manda Subbaalli Tayaru

Allam Mallikarjun Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhaskar at Gajula Bhaskar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh