Dismissed¶66

M/s. Sunny Associates v. Sri. K. Mallikarjun

Telangana HC24 Jan 2025CRP/4232/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court common order dated 24-01-2025 by Sujoy Paul, Acting Chief Justice, dismissing CRP Nos.4232 of 2024 and 214 of 2025 under Article 227 Constitution of India; Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC plaint rejection on ground of suit barred by law; General Power of Attorney clauses 3 and 11; GPA authority for three tenants; 'nip in the bud' with circumspection; plausible view of trial court; limited scope of Article 227 interference, patent illegality/perversity standard; Rule 32 Civil Rules of Practice docket order dated 24.04.2017; Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil relied on; no costs; counsel Smt. Gayathri for petitioner, respondent none appeared.

What did the court decide?

None; both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed, no order as to costs, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶66

M/s. Sunny Associates Vs Sri. K. Mallikarjun — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed, no order as to costs, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in the suit instituted on the strength of a General Power of Attorney, which on a conjoint reading of clauses 3 and 11 purportedly conferred power only in relation to two named tenants not including the petitioner/defendant, was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by law. +2 more

¶46

Court's answer

The petitioner could not point out that the alleged defect relating to the GPA brings the petitioner's objection within the ambit of 'barred by law' under clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC; the trial court therefore took a plausible view, and the ambit, scope and impact of the GPA remain open to be examined at the appropriate stage.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

The principle of 'nip in the bud' can be pressed into service only with circumspection; the petitioner could not establish, with accuracy and precision or with the aid of any legal authority, that the alleged defect in the GPA or anything based on the GPA attracts Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

¶60

Key takeaways

The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited: interference can be made only if the impugned order is patently illegal or suffers from palpable procedural impropriety or perversity; the mere possibility of another view is not a ground for interference (relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil); in absence of any impediment, interference is declined.ratio¶64
As counsel fairly admitted that the outcome of CRP No.4232 of 2024 would decide the fate of CRP No.214 of 2025, no separate adjudication was made on the Rule 32 Civil Rules of Practice challenge; both Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court for the State of Telangana (Sujoy Paul, Acting Chief Justice) dismissing Civil Revision Petition Nos.4232 of 2024 and 214 of 2025 preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution against orders of the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. CRP No.4232 of 2024 challenged the order dated 29.11.2024 in I.A.No.206 of 2024 in O.S.No.1071 of 2012 rejecting the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking rejection of a plaint instituted on the strength of a General Power of Attorney which, on a conjoint reading of clauses 3 and 11, was argued to confer power only in relation to two named tenants excluding the petitioner. CRP No.214 of 2025 challenged the docket order dated 24.04.2017 in I.A.No.425 of 2017 allowing an application under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Held: the alleged defect in the GPA does not bring the objection within the ambit of 'barred by law' under clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 CPC; the ambit, scope and impact of the GPA remain open at the appropriate stage; the 'nip in the bud' principle operates only with circumspection; the trial court took a plausible view; the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited and the possibility of another view is no ground for it (Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil relied on). Both revisions dismissed; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[^3,140 I

¶2

IN THEfIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

flil

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTTCE SUJOY PA{JL CIVIL REVI SION PETITION N os:4232 of2024&2 14 ot 2O25

¶7

Civil Revision Petition No.4232 ot 2024

¶8

Petition under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order dated 29-11-2024 passed in l.A No. 206 of 2024 in o.s. No. 1071 of 2012 on the fire of the court of the XXil Junior civir Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s, ,Sunny Associates, Rep. by Sunil R/o Flat No. 11, Btock 14, MlG.ll, uagnrrngampaily, Hyderabad _ 500044.

¶11

...Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri. K. Mallikariun s/o Late K. Shankarappa R/o 2-1_43BtA, Nallakunta Hyderabad (novri in usA).R;p. dv niJ'CEi"fi3rau,. nr, K Sanrosh w/o. K. Sharanappa, Rto. 2-1 438i A, ru5ri"LiniJ, nvo;;rij#: sooo44

¶14

...RespondenURespondenUplaintiff

¶15

lA NO: 1 oF 2024

¶16

Petition under section 151 cpc praying {hat in the circumstances stated rn the.affidavit fibd in supportof the peiitio;, in" Higt C"r;;;r;olr* a stay,all furthe-r proceedings in o.s.No.107 1 of 2017 incruding a[ triar proceedings on the fite of the Hon,bte XXr] !y1io_r Civir Judse, city ciiii bourt,-H-frJrl'oro pending disposal of the present Civil Revision peiition

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. Gayathri

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶19

f,ltl

¶20

¶21

Civil Re^{visionPetition N o.21 4 o12025}

¶22

i [Lt

¶23

PetitionunderArttcle22ToltheConstitutionoflndiaaggrevedbythe order dated^{24-04-2017 passed in l A No 425 of 2o17in O S SR No 3362 of 2017} on the^{fire of the cor,rt of the XXll Junior civil Judge,city civil court'} Hyderabad.

¶24

Between:

¶25

M/s Sunnv^{Assoctates,ngp} -9y^9ynil^{R/o' Flat No' 11' Block} 14, MlG.ll, iiignr.gJrip"llv^{Hvderabad- 500044'}

¶26

..Petitioner/s I

¶27

AND

¶28

Sri.K'Mallikarlun,s/o,LateK.Shankarappa.,Rto,2-1.438lA,Nallakunta Hvderabad^{(now in usnlH!"p ';v;iJ eCA'holderMr' K Santosh w/o K'}

¶29

...ResPonderrUs

¶30

IA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶31

Petitron under^{Section 151 CPC praying that.in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in .ropJn} "i^{in" p"itt"' ih" .HignCourt rnaybe pleaseclto} aflow the^{c.R p. by ."tt,rig'rl,ol tnl docket order-dated24-04-2)17passe(lin} 1.A.No.425^{0t2024 in o s"ruI".i"o7i(;roii on the file of the l'lon'trleXXll Jupior} Ci"ir'Jrog".^{City Civil Court, Hyderabad'T'S'}

¶32

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: Smt' Gayathri}

¶33

Counsel^{for the Respondent:NoneAppeared}

¶34

The Court^{madethe following:COMMON ORDER}

rf-
l
:]

j i I

, '.1,,

THE HOII'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL cwIL REVI SION PETITIO N Nos.4232 oF 2024& 214 0F ,L25 COMMOlfoRDER:

¶39

¶40

Since both the matters arise out of the same suit and are interrelated, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner; they were analogously heard.

¶41

CRp No.4232 of 2024 is frled challenging the order dated 29.11.2024 in I.A.No-206 of 2024 in O.S.No.rO Zt of 2OIZ on thp frle of ttre Court of XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courtg Hyderabad (for short, trial Court), whereunder the applicatiorg filed by the petitioner herein/defendant under order vII Rtrler

¶42

11(d) of CPC was rejected. The challenge mounted in CRFr No.214 of 2O2S is to the order dared 24.O4.2OI2 in I.A.No.425 of 2OI7 n O.S.No.lO7l of 2017, whereunder the trial Court; allowed the apprication filed by the peritioner herein/defendanr! under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of practice was allowed. 1

¶43

3 [,earned counsel for the petitioner, during the course ol" hearing, fairly admitted that outcome of CRp No.4232 of 2024: will decide the fate of other CRp.

¶44

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the above suit was frled under the strength o[ Genera] ;;. .

¶45

¶46

ol7. By placing^{heztrY reliance on} Attorney^{(GPA) dated 29'12'2} various clauses^{of GPA, le} counsel for^the Petitijner ",lil,"o submits that^{a conjoint reading of clauses3 and 11 of GPA} shows that the^powerwas tt"::^{to the agent in rela:ion to two} tenarts only.^{The narnes of sqid two tenants are spr:Iled out in} the opening^{paragraphs of GPA which does not include} ,the name of the^{petitioner herein"I'n this backdrop' the civil suit is} {iled on the strength^{of GPA which does not g;ive power and} strength to file^{the aforesaidsuit against the petitioner herein'} Thus, the^{plaint was liable to be rejectedunder Order VII F''ule} 11(d) of CPC

¶47

1- 5. The related^{matter, as noticed above'challengesthe} docket order^{,lated 24-04.2017whereby the applicationfrrled} under Rule^{312 of Civil Rules of?ractice is allou'erl '}

¶48

6 No other point^{is pressedby the learned counsel for the}

¶49

petltroner

¶50

I 7. Heard at length. :t

¶51

The trial Court in^{I.A.No.206 of 2024 considered the}

¶52

impact of both clauses 3^{and 111 highlighted by ttre petitioner}

¶53

¶54

¶55

and opined that the GPA has to be read in entiret5r. The trial

¶56

Court then observed as under:

¶57

iil

¶58

"1l...Even though the names of the other two tenants are specihcally mentioned in clauses No.3 and 1l as argued by the petitioner, a comprehensive reading of all tle clauses, particularly in conjunction with the frrst paragraph on the first page, reveals that the plaintiff has indeed granted authority to the GPA holder with respect to all three tenants which includes petitioner also. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioner, GPA Dt: 23-ll-2O15 has not conferred power on GPA holder to frle the present suit and without having any right or authorit5r the present suit was instituted by him against the petitioner is not sustainable."

¶59

In paragraph No.13 of the impugned order, the trial Court opined that the alleged defect in the GPA does not fall within the ambit of 'barred by law' as envisaged in clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The impugrred order makes it clear that at relevant stage, the said question will remain open to be decided. Putting it differently, the ambit, scope and impact of the said GPA can be examined at appropriate stage. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner could not point out that aforesaid alleged defect relating to GPA brings the petitioners'objection within the ambit of 'barred by law'. Thus, the trial Court has taken a plausible view.

¶60

The principle of 'nip in the bud'can be pressed into service with circumspection. The petitioner could not establish with accuracy and precession and with the aid of any legal authortrt

¶61

llfl

¶62

¶63

that any such^{defect in the GPA or based on GPA vrill attrac} t I Order VII Rule^{L 1(d) of CPC'}

¶64

I 1. This is^{trite that the scope of interference underArticle} 227 of the^{Constitution is limited'Interferencecan be made- if} order impugned^{is patently illegal or suffersfrom palpable} procedural impropriety^{or perversity' Another view is possible'} I is not a^{grouncl for interference} {See^{ShaliniShyamShettyvs'}

¶65

Rajendra Shankar^{Patilr). In absenceof any inppedient pn} which interference^{can be made,interference is declirLed':}

¶66

Accordingly,^{the Civil RevisionPetitions are dismissed'} There shall be^{no order as to costs' Miscellaneousapplicatiofls} pending, if anY, shall^standclosed

¶67

sdl- P crl, !+f;$rBHE3iilHit

¶68

//TRUE^COPY// / SECTION^OFFICER

¶69

To,

¶70