B MALLESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the defendants 2 and 6 in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession have come up with the present revision.

(2.) Heard Mr. S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs.

(3.) The short ground, on which the petitioners/defendants 2 and 6 sought the rejection of the plaint, was that the suit was instituted by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, describing the 1st plaintiff as representing the 2nd plaintiff also, on the basis of a Special Power of Attorney. At the time of institution of the suit, an application was obviously filed under Order III Rule 2 CPC and it was allowed. But, the petitioners later found out that there was no valid Power of Attorney, on the basis of which, the 1st plaintiff could be taken to be representing the 2nd plaintiff. Hence, contending that there was no cause of action for the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs to institute the suit, the petitioners took out an application for rejection of the plaint. But, the trial court was not convinced. Hence, the petitioners are before me.