Telangana High Court
Chintalapati Krishna Murthy vs Smt.Razia Sultana on 2 March, 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1380 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants assailing the orders dated 12.12.2018 in I.A.No.1051 of 2018 in O.S.No.1447 of 2003, on the file of the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. This application in I.A.No.1051 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short, CPC), to direct notices to the original owners who are plaintiffs No.1 to 5 in the above suit since the vakalat filed on behalf of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 is extinguished as per Section 202 of Contract Act on execution of registered sale deeds dated 12.02.2004 and 08.08.2007 and pass such other orders.
3. This application filed by the petitioners/defendants was allowed by the Court below with an observation that originally, the suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 5 represented by plaintiffs 6 to 10 as General Power of Attorney Holder to the plaintiffs 1 to
5. Later, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 sold the property in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10. Thus, the power given come to an end as the 2 plaintiffs 1 to 5 alienated their rights in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10 and the vakalath filed on behalf of plaintiffs 1 to 5 is extinguished under Section 202 of Contract Act. Accordingly, the principal right given by plaintiffs 6 to 10, stands extinguished in view of execution of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs 6 to 10 by plaintiffs 1 to 5. The petition was allowed. However, the Court felt that it is not necessary to issue notice to plaintiffs 1 to 5.
4. As the trial Court has not issued notices to plaintiffs 1 to 5, feeling aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants to set aside the order impugned in so far as holding that no notices are required to be given to the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5 as illegal and without proper exercise of jurisdiction.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
6. The original suit in O.S.1447 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property. It appears, during pendency of the suit, plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs No.6 to 10. In view of the said fact, the defendants 3 have requested this Court to issue summons to the plaintiffs 1 to 5 as the contract between plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 6 to 10 is extinguished as per Section 202 of Contract Act and the plaintiffs cannot continue on record as GPA holders as they have executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10.
7. Whereas, the contention of the plaintiffs before the trial Court as per the averments in the counter is that, at the time of filing of the suit, an application is filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice and it was allowed. Therefore, it is absolutely not required at this stage to inquire or ascertain as to the continuation or extinguishment of any such contract under Section 202 of Indian Contract Act and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application. The trial Court on careful analysis of the facts of the case, recorded the factum of plaintiffs 1 to 5 executing sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10, but it was felt not necessary to issue notices to the plaintiffs 1 to 5 as requested by the defendants. Hence, the Revision Petition filed.
8. Learned counsel for the defendants relied on the principles laid by this Court in the case of Siddareddy Venkatanagaraja Reddy Vs.Shahamat Ali Khan (AIR 2017 Hyderabad 59) wherein this Court in a different context while dealing with the Power of Attorney Act and Indian Contract Act, held that when a plaintiff was appointed as GPA holder for 4 selling particular property, after selling the property, the GPA gets dissolved, agency of plaintiff would stand terminated.
9. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid in the above decision, but the facts of the present case are quite distinct. Here, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 being the GPA holders of plaintiffs 6 to 10, have filed the present suit by obtaining required permission under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice. During pendency of suit, it appears plaintiffs 1 to 5 have executed sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10, but initially, they were authorized to represent the plaintiffs 6 to 10 also and it is a matter of appreciation and evidence during trial about the transaction that took place during pendency of this lis or this suit. Merely because the plaintiffs 1 to 5 have executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 6 to 10, a notice is not required to be issued. It is for these plaintiffs either to enter into the witness box in support of the plaintiffs' case or not to enter into the witness box to give evidence in support of the plaintiffs' case. The defendants are at liberty during trial to take appropriate steps. At this stage, issuing of notices to plaintiffs 1 to 5 is absolutely unwarranted. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Court below and the order impugned is sustained.
5
10. In the result, the CRP is dismissed confirming the order dated 12.12.2018 in I.A.No.1051 of 2018. However, the defendants are at liberty to raise all such pleas that are raised in the present application during trial before the trial Court as the original suit is filed in the year 2003, certain transactions have taken place between plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 6 to 10 during pendency of the said suit which are subject to the result of the suit which is pending since last two decades under one pretext or the other. The Court below is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the original suit and shall make every endeavour for disposal of the original suit within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the original suit as directed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs.
11. Consequently, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY Date: 02.03.2022 ysk 6 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1380 OF 2019 8 Date:
ysk