(1.) This is a revision petition.against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 30-1-1975 dismissing the appeal and continuing the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Visakbapatnam, in Original Suit No. 250 of 1971 dismissing the suit filed for recovery of the amount on the basis of promissory note.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower courts erred in holding that the suit should be treated as barred by time,
(3.) To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts; The suit is filed by the agent and Muktyar Abdul Wahab Khan on the basis of a promissory note dated 1-6-1968 executed by the defendant in favour of Abdulla Kban the promisee for Rs, 600/- with interest at 25% Per annum. The defendant denied the borrowing and execution of the promissory note. He also alleged that the suit is not maintainable since the power of attorney alleged to have been given in favour of Abdul Wahab Khan is not proper and valid. The trial court found that the promissory note is true and was supported by consideration. It further held that though the promiseeplaintiff executed a registered power of attorney on 26-6 1964 in favour of Abdul Wahab Khan P.W. 1 that did not authorise the power of attorney to file the present suit. On that ground the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff went in appeal, A.S. No. 147 of 1972. By that time the plaintiff-promisee executed another power of Attorney on 19-8-1972 in favour of Wabab Khan and tiled I.A. No. 241 of 1973 to receive the said document as additional evidence in the appeal. That petition was allowed and the said document was marked as Ex. A-5. Consequently the suit was remanded for fresh disposal according to law keeping in view the provisions of Order 3 rules 1 to 4 ot the Code of Civil Procedure. The finding that the promissory note is true, valid, binding and supported by consideration has become final and was not reopened by the trial court. After remand the learned District Munsif found that Ex. A-5 was executed on 19-8-1972. The promissory note, Ex. A-2, was executed on l-6-'68. Ex. A-1 dated 26-6-1964 is an extract of the registered power of attorney executed by the plaintiff-promisee in favour of Wahab Khan. The learned District Munsif referered to Abdul Latif vs. Jawahar Seth wherein it was held that a suit filed by a person, who was not authorised agent of the Indian State, must be dismissed and subsequent authority obtained under Section 85 CPC. after the appeals tiled against the judgment ot dismissal would not cure the defect. The learned District Munsif also referred to Desappa Naganim vs. Ramabhaktul Ramiah wherein it was held that when a person was authorised by a special power of attorney to conduct a suit in the court of the District Munsif at Tirupathifor the suit schedule properties and when the District Munsif returned the plaint on the ground that it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of his court, the agent bad no power to institute and conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court and accordingly it was held that the Sub-Court was right in holding that the presentation of the plaint by the person having the special power of attorney was not valid. In the instant case, on the grounds that the earlier power of attorney of the year 1964 (Ex. A-1) did not authorise Abdul Wabab Khan to file the suit and the later power of attorney, Ex. A-5, was executed long after the institution of the suit, the trial Court held that Ex. A-S would not make the presentation of the plaint valid since by that date, 19 8-1972, the suit became barred by limitation. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court in dismissing the suit.