APHC010195232026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1109 OF 2026 Between: 1. KARRI BABU MAHESH, S/O. LATE BABU RAO, HINDU, AGED 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION EMPLOYEE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF D.NO. 14-2-6, RAMAKRISHNARAO PETA, KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VISSAM SETTI NAGAMANI, W/O. LATE APPARAO, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 41-6-22, POOSARLAVARI STREET, JAGANNAICKPUR, KAKINADA. (REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER VISSAMSETTI VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. LATE APPARAO, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 41-6-22, POOSARLAVARI STREET, JAGANNAICKPUR, KAKINADA.) 2. ALLADA SARADADEVI, W/O. SUBRAHMANYAM, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 64 YEARS, R/O. 9-8-605, KALADEVI STREET, GROUND FLOOR, VIJ AYADURGA APARTMENT, GANDHI NAGAR, KAKINADA. 3. MANYALA VEERA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. ADINARAYANA, AGED 44 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 14-5-13, RAMAKRISHNARAO PETA, KAKINADA. 4. KONDRU SANKARA MURTHY, S/O. LATE GURUVULU, AGED 79 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 3-9-39, RECHARLAPETA, KAKINADA. 5. AMBATI KOWSALYA, D/O. LATE PYDIYYA, AGED 46 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 3-9-39, RECHARLAPETA, KAKINADA. 6. AMBATI GANGA GOWNI TULASI, D/O. LATE PYDIYYA, AGED 43 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 3-9-39, RECHARLAPETA, KAKINADA. 2 7. DIVILI NAGAMANI, W/O. RAMANA, AGED 49 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 17-1-75, SAJAYNAGAR, KAKINADA. 8. KAKARLAPUDI SATYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. LATE ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAJU, AGED 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION NIL, R/O. D.NO. 3-29, SAI GANESH STREET, VAKALAPUDI, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PATTIPATI KALYAN KUMAR 3 The Court made the following Order: Petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.190 of 2017 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, aggrieved by an order dated 24.02.2026 in I.A.No.161 of 2026 in O.S.No.190 of 2017, filed the present Revision Petition. 2. Heard Mr.Manoj Makireddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent was not available on 18.09.2026 and even today also, though the matter was listed under the caption „for orders‟. Perused the material on record. 3. Petitioner/plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, the details of which are mentioned in the plaint schedule. 2nd defendant/respondent herein on 19.06.2018 filed written statement. After completion of plaintiff‟s evidence, 2nd defendant‟s son/GPA Holder filed the above Interlocutory Application under Order 32 of Civil Rules of Practice and Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to him to represent and depose on behalf of his mother/2nd defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff filed counter and resisted the said application. Learned District Judge allowed the said application by an order dated 24.02.2026, which is reproduced hereunder: “Counter of R.1 filed. Counter of R.3 to R.6 not filed. Hence, treated nil. The counter of R.1 speaks about the scope and purview of GPA but nothing to deny the present petitioner to 4 represent her mother i.e., D.2 as GPA. Hence, considering the petition averments the same is allowed.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions inter alia to the effect that the order under challenge was passed without considering the matter in the correct perspective. Drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter filed in I.A.No.161 of 2026 and the Power of Attorney dated 21.01.2026, learned counsel submits that the same was executed at Kakinada, that the respondent/2nd defendant is the resident of Kakinada and in such circumstances the impugned order permitting the son of the defendant is not tenable, more particularly as no medical certificate was filed, at least to justify the filing of application in question. Further, the question of giving evidence/deposing on behalf of respondent / 2nd defendant under the guise of GPA is not tenable in law. He submits that despite specific objections in the counter, the learned District Court allowed the application in question by opining as if it is only to represent the 2nd defendant as a GPA. No cogent reasons, much less by considering the objections raised were assigned and impugned order, therefore, is vitiated. 5. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the impugned order warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” 6. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. in question, the reason for seeking permission was 5 that the applicant‟s mother/2nd defendant fell sick, took treatment at Visakhapatnam and unable to come to Kakinada. It is also stated that “she executed a GPA dated 21.01.2026 authorizing me to represent the suit and depose evidence on her behalf.” As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the said Power of Attorney, which was notarized on 21.01.2026 would clearly indicate that respondent/2nd defendant executed the same at Kakinada on the said date. In such circumstances, the reason stated in the affidavit that the respondent/2nd defendant took treatment at Visakhapatnam and unable to come to Kakinada cannot be accepted. Further, the nature of illness, much less, the duration was stated in the affidavit. Nor was any medical certificate filed along with the application. In the absence of the same, allowing the I.A. in question despite raising specific objections, in a cryptic manner is legally not sustainable. It is also pertinent to point out that the prayer in the I.A. is to permit the applicant to represent and depose on behalf of the executant of the GPA. While it may be permissible to the GPA holder to represent the executant/his mother, but he cannot be allowed to depose on her behalf. This aspect was overlooked by the learned Trial Court and the Order under revision is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Point is answered accordingly. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. 6 8. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:01.10.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1109 OF 2026 Date:01.10.2026 Ssv