IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** +Civil Revision Petition No.2944 of 2025 Between: #1. Yadlapalli Suseela Devi, W/o. Brahmaiah, Aged about 67 years, resident of Door No.6-19,Takkellapadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND $1. Akula Bhiksham @ Bikshalu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged abut 53 years, resident of 5th lane,Annapurna Nagar, Gorantla, Guntur City, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 Date of Judgment pronounced on: 27.02.2026 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals: 3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No of the Judgment? 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO + Civil Revision Petition No.2944 of 2025 % Dated: 27-02-2026 Between: #1. Yadlapalli Suseela Devi, W/o. Brahmaiah, Aged about 67 years, resident of Door No.6-19,Takkellapadu Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND $1. Akula Bhiksham @ Bikshalu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged abut 53 years, resident of 5th lane,Annapurna Nagar, Gorantla, Guntur City, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Sriram Murthy ^Counsel for Respondent : Sri Krishna Kishore Bhatraju <GIST : >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 APHC010575762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2944/2025 Between: 1. YADLAPALLI SUSEELA DEVI, W/O BRAHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 6-19, TAKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. AKULA BHIKSHAM BIKSHALU, kula Bhiksham @ Bikshalu, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 53 years, resident of 5th lannne, Annapurna Nagar, Gorantla, Guntur City, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the Order dated Order dated 25-07- 2025 made in I.A. No. 368 of 2025, on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in dismissing the petition filed the petitioner under 32 of Civil Rules of practice, authorizing his son to represent the petitioner/plaintiff and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay the further proceedings in O. S. No. 710 of 2015, Ill Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass 6 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SRIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KRISHNA KISHORE BHATRAJU 7 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.710 of 2015 before the learned III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, for a permanent injunction, restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. The petitioner also moved I.A.No.368 of 2025, under Rule 32 of C.P.C to permit her to be represented by her son, as her authorized person. This application was resisted by the respondent, on the ground that it is the petitioner, who is fully aware of the facts of the case, including the manner in which the property was alienated, and therefore, the application should not be permitted. 2. The Trial Court dismissed the said application, by an order, dated 25.07.2025. The reason given for such dismissal is that the petitioner had not given valid reasons for appointing her son as her authorized person to represent her. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. There is no representation for the respondent, on 23.01.2026 as well as on 20.02.2026. There is no representation for the respondent even today. 5. In the circumstances, this Court is taking up the Revision Petition on its merits. 8 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 6. The reason given, in the order-under-revision, for rejecting the application of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had not given any reason for appointing her son as her authorized representative. Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice, as well as Order III Rule 1 entitle litigants to appoint any person to represent him/her in a suit or other proceedings, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In such circumstances, the question of satisfying the Court as to the reason for making such an arrangement would not arise. The provision of either Rule 32 of C.P.C. or Order III Rule 1 do not provide for any such requirement. 7. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the Trial Court, dated 25.07.2025, and the son of the petitioner shall be permitted to be represented in the suit. 8. The question of whether the petitioner would be the only person who could depose by herself or whether the son of the petitioner, in the position of her authorized representative, would be able to depose on her behalf, is dependent upon the actual knowledge of facts by the authorized representative and that issue is left open. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 27.02.2026 MJA 9 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2944 of 2025 305 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2944/2025 27.02.2026 MJA