YADLAPALLI SUSEELA DEVI Vs. AKULA BHIKSHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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, dtd. 25/7/2025. 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.